This is an archive of past discussions about Guinness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The first sentence says that Guinness is a stout, it is not, it is a porter. The difference is largely oak kegs vs metal casks. Beamish and Murphy's are stouts, Guinness is not (the page on Arthur Guinness correctly identifies Guinness as a porter as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.155.201 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
When Guinness was invented, porter and stout were not distinguishably different styles. Modern day Guinness is the preeminent example of a modern stout. Yes, there is some debate over the differences between porter and stout, or if there even is a difference, but one cannot definitively claim that Guinness is a porter. Plus, the commonly understood difference between stout and porter is not in the vessel (oak vs. steel) but in the choice of malts.
DFS (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation!
The intro to this article is verbatim from the beeripedia article on Guinness, which is linked at the bottom of the page. However, the text of the intro is not directly attributed to beeripedia. Additionally, whether the text originated here under GFDL or there under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license, neither license allows for a change of license. Perhaps, however, the text came from some other, public domain (or license-change-allowing) source. In any case, someone more knowledgeable than myself ought to look into this, and a proper attribution to the author or source should be made in the article. Jon Wilson 24.162.120.5216:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just below is the section of my first editing on Wikipedia and is what I found looking at it once again. I changed vortex to current. But it really wasn't written clearly so I did a little more. I've never heard of a beer sucking in any way other than taste. Yet it was written that the Guinness sucks bubbles down. Pushes the bubbles down makes a lot more sense. Perhaps mentioning entrainment was going to far, but it's not wrong.
I hope whoever re-edited my changes sees this. Do what you think is best, and feel free to delete these comments.
First change: The effect is attributed to drag; bubbles which touch the walls of a glass are slowed in their upwards travel. Bubbles in the centre of the glass are, however, free to rise to the surface, and form a rising column of bubbles. This creates a current, which causes the bubbles near the edge of the glass to be sucked downwards by the base of the column, and pushed downwards by the column's head. [5] Although the effect occurs in any liquid, it is particularly noticeable in any dark nitrogen stout, as the drink combines dark-coloured liquid and light-coloured bubbles.
Final version: The effect is attributed to drag; bubbles which touch the walls of a glass are slowed in their upwards travel. Bubbles in the centre of the glass are, however, free to rise to the surface, and form a rising column of bubbles. The rising bubbles create a current by the entrainment of the surrounding fluid. As beer rises in the center, the beer near the outside of the glass falls. This downward flow pushes the bubbles near the glass towards the bottom. [5] Although the effect occurs in any liquid, it is particularly noticeable in any dark nitrogen stout, as the drink combines dark-coloured liquid and light-coloured bubbles.
"Perfectly Poured" photo
I think it might be a good idea to changed the caption for the "perfectly poured" photo as the two pints in the photo are far from being "perfectly poured" - the heads of each pint don't even reach the top of the rim of the glasses.
- OFDM16:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe they were perfect but the photographer couldn't help himself taking a sip or two.
Assuming the image is public domain, I say go for it. I suppose the text of the main article should be edited slightly to indicate that a perfectly poured pint should reach the top of the glass as well.--Gangster Octopus22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that for it to qualify as a perfectly poured pint of guinness it should be in a guinness glass including shamrock ;)
A Guinness head with a shamrock is for tourists! The criterium is that the head be smooth and free of bubbles. Another criterium is that the Guinness be poured in two pulls and not "built" as is often the case in Ireland. Whether the pint glasss is a Guinness glass or not does not affect the validity of a perfect pint. Guinness glasses are/were not always available. In a perfectly poured pint the head should "stand proud" of the lip of the glass. And yes, I do have a certificate from Guinness showing that I can pour a perfect pint. TinyMark18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC) {But you can`t spell criterion.)
Regarding the unnessicary 2 stage pour - my edit has been removed, but would the revisor like to comment on why they have revised it? Historically Guinness was pored form the 'wood', but the new nitro kegs do not require this pour - I know that's how Diagio train you - but try doing a single pour, and see who can tell the difference once they have settled. Referenced from Beer and Cider in Ireland: The Complete Guide by Iorwerth Griffiths —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.112.216 (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Changes
I am an employee of the Guinness Storehouse and I corrected some inaccuracies. The serving temperature is never 13°C as stated previously. Also, I am certain the water from the Dodder river is not the source of the brewery's supply.
I put back a more neutral langauge wording, given that half the Guinness drinkers I know drink Guinness quite warm, and many eateries and even pubs will ask you if you want it served warm or cold, and keep stocks of both chilled and nearly-room temperature Guinness. The original language indicated that this (higher figure) ideal temperature was quite disputed, and that the lower figure is generally preferred, but also that not all agree. To simply say that "this is incorrect" is POV, especially when considers that it is in reference to a preference of taste and not to an industry recommendation or such. This could stand to be cleaned up a bit later in any case.
Thats right, warm guiness is served at a pub near me. I think its just room temparature. Its nice warm. Borb22:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Guinness does not sponsor Cork City FC. It used to but has not done so for quite a while, Please remove sentance.
Ah, you're right, it's Nissan now, isn't it? Where's my head at all? Changed. Feel free to fix things like that yourself though. Dave01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yiddish
Is it worth mentioning that Guinness is Kosher and began exporting to the State of Israel in the first month of it's creation? --Irishpunktom\talk
Yes, it probably is worth mentioning it, since I gather that the Chief Rabbi of Ireland has said so, but I can't find a source. However, last time I was at Dublin airport I noticed two orthodox Jews enjoying a pint of Guinness. Millbanks (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Here! Here! for the editorial. By the way, if you're ever in Houston, McGonegal's Mucky Duck takes about 4 minutes to pour an imperial pint. --Invictus
Is Guinness a beer first and foremost? Who is the book of world records named after? Does s/he deserve an entry? :-)
It depends on who you are and where you are from. If you say "Guinness" in the U.K. everyone will think of the beer first. Unless you are young, and can't get into pubs, in which case you will probably think of the records book first.
Even in the US, the records book is always referred to as the "Guinness's book of records". Though I don't frequent bars, but I think the short name "Guinness" is always the beer.
Yes, Guinness is a beer first. The Guinness book of records is named after the beer maker.
Guinness originally made the book of records for use in Pub Quizzes
Guinness is not only a book and a beer, it's also a brewer (though he might be posted under his full name), and a brewery! Quite a lot of the interwiki links are ONLY about the beer (the english article is about the brewery AND the beer). And some are about both. Especially note the german article - it's specifically about the beer (Bier = beer), and not the brewery, even though I haven't been able to find an article about the brewery in the german wikipedia. Obviously, at least in my eyes, this seems like a good place for a fork page? Additionally, there should be some cleanup among the interwiki links - it doesn't look that good if you read a page about one subject, and you end up in a similar, but not identic article... 82.83.127.193 9 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
Is there any information on the brewing process, ingredients, alcohol level, etc? Martin.
You can find some information regarding Guiness at Guiness.com.
i.e.
"Six Degrees of Preparation
GUINNESS® Draught is best served at 6°C (that’s 42.8°F), with the legendary two-part pour. First, tilt the glass to 45 degrees and carefully pour until three quarters full. Then place the glass on the bar counter and leave to settle. Once the surge has settled, fill the glass to the brim. It takes about 119.5 seconds to pour the perfect pint. But don’t fret. It’s worth the wait." - www.Guiness.com
Correction....Guinness is not a beer, its a Stout.
I was descended from Arthur Guinness. (McGuinness was my grandmother's maiden name.) Scott Gall 00:18, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Stout is a type of beer. Same as Pinot Noir is a type of wine. Lineage is irrelevant.
You can live off Guinness?...
NEW SCIENTIST magazine
Worth putting in or too trivial?
This is not quite true. Guinness does contain many vitamins and minerals in small quantities, but is lacking vitamin C, as well as calcium and fat. So, to fulfil all of your daily nutritional requirements you would need to drink, a glass of orange juice, two glasses of milk, and 47 pints of Guinness
I'd always heard that it was Guinness AND milk that you could live off. I suppose, as long as you don't mind a little scurvy, that's fine. Darac Marjal 10:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the number of pints of Guinness you could live off of, it probably shouldnt be mentioned in the artical because it is very trivial. If you tried living off of guinness, you'd be drunk, dehydrated, and you'll break the bank. But since I work for Diageo, I'd say go ahead and drink up ;)
DATE WRONG!
Will someone tell Wikipedia that Guinness was first made in 1859 and not in 1857 as they said. What a clumsy mistake.
Well thats gonna be hard to do, considering that it does not say anywhere in the article about 1859 or 1857, and if you are refering to the dates of 1759 and 1757 then you need to re-read the article. It says that the brewery opened in 1756 and didn't brew Guinness untill 1759.
"Arthur Guinness Son & Co., founded 1756, produces a dark stout (a type of beer, specifically porter), known widely as Guinness, brewed at St. James's Gate Brewery, Dublin, Ireland since 1759, when Arthur Guinness signed a 9,000 year lease at £45 per annum for the unused brewery
Unfortunately, 1759 is also probably incorrect for the start date for stout brewing. I will change it if and when I find a source, but I believe Arthur G didn't begin brewing stout for several decades. Moreover, stout and porter are not the same! BrendanH17:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The exact date Guinness first brewed Porter is unknown because the brewery's records only go back to 1796. This is what is known for certain:
In 1796 Guinness brewed two beers: ale and porter. In 1799 the ale was dropped. In 1801 they introduced Keeping Porter and in 1803 Country Porter.
Superior Porter was brewed from 1806 on an occasional basis, After 1840 it was known as Single Stout. In 1896 it was renamed Porter. It was last brewed in the early 1970's.
Extra Superior Porter was occasuionally brewed from 1806 onwards. After 1821 it was brewed regularly and became the mainstay of exports to England. Around 1840 the name was changed to Double Stout. In 1896 in was renamed Extra Stout. This is the forerunner of today's Guinness Extra Stout. In the early days a "Keeping" version was brewed, which was matured longer and blended with fresh beer in the Summer to maintain quality during warm weather.
West Indies Porter, was also brewed occasionally in the early 1800’s. By 1840 it was a regular product and was called Triple Stout. After 1896 it was called Foreign Export Double Stout This is the direct ancestor of today’s Foreign Extra Stout. In the 1800's, it was the same gravity as the domestic Double Stout/Extra Stout but hopped more heavily and matured longer, which meant it was stronger too. Around 1900, both had an OG of 1074 but the export stout was 7.8% ABV, the domestic stout only 7%.
Sources:
"Guinness’s Brewery in the Irish Economy 1759-1876", Patrick Lynch and John Vaizey, pages 150-151.
"Guinness 1886-1939", by Dennison & McDonagh, p. 2, 153, 159
There was a picture of some traffic and apparently a roadside sign for Guinness that was very hard to read as such. I have replaced that with an advert that is mentioned in the article. I can't imagine there are use problems with the picture since it is available as a poster from dozens of different sites on the web. I even have one hanging in my bedroom.
Exportation
I added a comment in regards to the first noted Exportation in 1769. There is more in the history in regards exportation and brewing outside of Ireland (such as the brewery in Africa).
Rowlan18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
To Expand On
How exactly do you draw a shamrock or harp in the head of guiness?!
By moving the glass as you do the final pour - the flow of liquid through the settled head will leave an obvious line. Also you should be able to stand a match vertically in the head of a properly poured pint of Guinness.
St Patricks day Speciality
+ Comments on how Guinness is normally the drink of choice to celebrate St Paddy's day?
This is not entirely true, and depends on country to country. Within Ireland, it even depends on county to county.
Following varying discussions on other beer pages, a brief discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Archive, current ongoing procedure and an explanation of intention during the process on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4 (which was related to the entire re-categorisation of all the beer articles), the consensus has been to move individual beer articles into the main article of the parent brewery or brand holder. This procedure is not explicit policy, it is understood that editors may and do have differences of opinion, and there has not been a long and developed discussion in which many people have given their views. Therefore, when during a merge into Guinness of Harp Lager, Smithwick's and Macardle Moore Brewery, User:Boothy443 reverted back and objected to lack of appropriate merge tags being used, it seemed appropriate that another opportunity be given for people to air their views on the general policy of dealing with beer brands. Please give your views. Should beer brands be discussed in a major article on the brewery/brand owner in which related matters and other brands can be detailed together - or would be be more appropriate for beer brands to be detailed on both the brewery page and in an individual article with, however, some repetition of information? SilkTork12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Rather than simply vote, it would be useful if people gave reasons so a debate can emerge. It would certainly be helpful to me if I could see why people are in favour of dealing with beer brands separate from the brewery. SilkTork12:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Many notable beer brands have been the subject of mergers and acquisitions. Ruddles beers are now owned by Green King. It would be inappropriate to lump it all together. The argument about duplicated information holds no water. Just look at the sub-articles that come off of subjects like World War II, there is plenty of repetition in these articles. Jooler12:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a good point, and one that has given me pause for thought. I should make it clear that my position here is that I am broadly in favour of dealing with beers within the main brewery article - however, at this stage I am not about arguing in favour of such a procedure, but looking into the arguments for and against. Any debate I now get involved in is more about exploring the issues, rather than pushing people to take my viewpo
int. I confess I am not 100% certain that all beers should be dealt with within the main brewery - and your point reveals one of the arguments in favour of having individual entries. However, to push the counter-argument: Ruddles beers, to take the example, are a brand of beer owned and brewed by Greene King, so there would be information about the beers under the brewery entry. Even though I am a beer enthusiast and I write beer articles, there is not much to be said about Ruddles Best, other than a brief history of the three breweries who have brewed the brand. It is a fairly standard best bitter made with standard ingredients. It is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. A few lines under the current brewer would be enough. I don't think I have yet come upon a beer article which has said anything significant about a beer that could not be contained in a few lines or a paragraph. Many articles contained more information about the brewery, other brands made by the brewery, how cheap the beers were, some mention of non-notable advertising, colour and shape of the beer can or bottle, or that students of such and such a college get very pissed on the beer. There is room on Wiki, perhaps, for a general article on the history of major and notable beer brands within a certain region, but individual entries on the half-million known beer brands would obviously be too much - especially as a simple redirect on a beer brand name would take a reader to the main brewery page where information on that brand and related beers could be found. And using other topics is not necessarily the best argument, as there will be differences between topics and the best ways of dealing with them. Pointing to WW2 and off shoots would be like me pointing to Beer and the off-shoots, including all the breweries. There is no exact comparison, and we could get into a side argument. SilkTork19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I think Silktork's view is sound, but I would take the view that there are some brands which are notable enough to deserve an article of their own. I think Guinness is a good example, where the history, composition, global reach etc of the stout are worthy of a separate article. I also think the argument Jooler makes about brands switching between breweries is valid (Gale's H.S.B. now brewed by Fuller's, for example). Also, Silktork's comments about Ruddles Best Bitter are POV (albeit precisely in line with my POV!). I think that a factual and accurate article on Ruddles Best Bitter, its history, tasting notes, notable past advertising etc. would be valid, if someone cared and knew enough to write one. Cheers Duncshine09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that there are certain beers which are notable enough to give serious consideration for a full article. Guinness could well be one of those. However, Harp lager is insignificant. It is one of several thousand global lagers of the same quality. It has no significant history or importance. Some people have drunk the beer and may have developed a brand loyalty, but that is a very poor reason for an encyclopedia entry. The current Harp Lager entry gives a general account of lager brewing in Ireland, which would be better placed in an entry on beer in Ireland. The rest of the brief comments could be tidied up and placed, along with other minor brands, under the parent company Diageo, with Guinness dealt with individually. I haven't checked, but the current entry reads like an advertising blurb. But, Harp lager aside, I'm interested in the notion of getting together a policy on beer or brewery articles, and if enough editors feel that some beers are notable enough to justify having their own articles, what the criteria would be. The wiki article Wikipedia:Notability gives some general thoughts on the topic. SilkTork23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's dangerous to allow POV to intrude too far into this (though it's all about editors' opinions and concensus in the end). One man's notable is another woman's trivial, and vica versa. I don't think you can discount Harp Lager just because you think it's just another lager (again, I agree with you but I don't think that's the point). What I think is more relevant is that the article should contain non-POV information about Harp Lager. As it stands the article contains one small paragraph at the top, and a brand logo. The rest of the article isn't about Harp Lager, so on the grounds that there is very little info on Harp in the article, you could argue for deletion/merge. My personal preference would be to remove the history of Irish lager stuff (maybe to its own article), keep a link to the Guinness article, and declare this article a 'beer stub'. On Silktork's wider point of what constitutes a notable beer, I think there should be an informal policy on beer brand articles. We could create a style with what such articles should and shouldn't contain. Perhaps a non-POV description of the beer in question (lager beer, available on draught, in bottles etc), where it is brewed, the history of the brand and its ownership, significant past advertising campaigns (Guinness is good for you; Harp stays sharp to the bottom of the glass), possibly a link to the brand official web site (if it still exists), and a picture of the current (or most recent) brand logo. Then if we had a preferred template for creating these articles, we could more easily spot and remove the blurb etc. Duncshine08:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Didn't know that about H.S.B. If there's enough space on the Internet for someone to create their own webpage about a specific beer then there certainly should be room on Wikipedia. As for Ruddles, I'd drink County Jooler09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That's never been a criteria for entry on Wiki. Wiki is not an attempt to replace the internet. There should be some significance or notability for an item to justify an entry. If someone has a website on a certain beer, that's fine and good. People have websites on all manner of topics that are not included on Wiki. I am broadly in favour of including as much information as possible on Wiki, and I'm not advocating that even insignificant beers such as Ruddles Best or Harp lager be removed entirely from the encyclopedia. The argument I am following is that such beers should be dealt with according to their importance and relevance. A line or a paragraph would be enough for most people, and would be better dealt with in the article space of the parent brewery. A casual attitude to inclusion leads to clutter and confusion and endless trivial beer articles which would be of no service to anyone. I have long pondered the notion of articles on significant beers, such as Guinness and Budweiser, and how best to deal with the situation without leaving the door open to trivial beer entries. SilkTork23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I oppose a full merge as well. I would not oppose a brief section that stated that Guiness does have a variety of other labels and then hyper-links to the main articles for those individual beers.--Gangster Octopus15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose this merge. The corporate take-over is relative recent compared to the beer's complete history. The Smithwicks article needs a section on the beer's and company's own history - which would not fit in the Guinness article. -- P19903:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose, as the person who initial brought up this issue i thought i should weigh in, my first statement on this subject can be seen here. The other things that i would like to pit out is, that i don't see the decision of a category for deletion having any impact on the merging on articles, and it should have no effect on them, to apply it is only to subvert real discussion. The merging also sets a bad precedent, in that article that should be distinct will not have the chance to "ferment". Also who is to say what gets merged into what, if this were to go forward, then i would move for the Budweiser article to be merged into this article, due to the fact, at least when i last checked in 2003, the Saint James Gate brewed Budweiser and related bud products along with the Guinness. I also agree though with the statements made by Jooler, Gangster Octopus, and P199. --Boothy443 | trácht ar07:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
i oppose a merge firstly because i dont see what good it will do and secondly because i dont see that anything is wrong with having seperate articles. also in the case of guiness beers there are not many and in ireland where they have originated, the brands have a very distinct image - merging the beers would be like merging ford mercedes and toyota simply because they were cars —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.192.81.49 (talk • contribs) .
Being that it has been over a week since this discussion started, and several days since the last comment, i would like to move to closing this debate with removal of the merge tags, consider that the general consensus seems to be oppose, and i have not seen any additional discussion on the pages involved on on the beer board to come in conflict with this decision. Any one want to second this or comment. --Boothy443 | trácht ar03:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Only to confirm that I still oppose the blanket merge suggested by some - though not very many, apparently - editors. It is inappropriate for one editor to decide that a given beer or brand (or any other item) is not notable enough for an article. Let the articles stand or fall on their own merits, and go through the proper 'deletion' or 'merge' process. Duncshine10:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that its been rather a long time and that such a merge is pointless, hence I'm going to remove the merge notices - theres no support for them. None of these are random beer articles, all are seperate beers - and if you want to be anal and merge them in, Diageo would be a FAR more suitable target article - they aren't connected with Guinness anymore, but their parent firm. --Kiand02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is fully appropriate to deal with certain beer brands within their own articles. This will now be done in future. Though care still needs to be taken to ensure that Wiki doesn't become a replacement for the internet. This is an encyclopedia, and the beers to be granted their own articles need to be significant.
I also agree that Harp is deserving of an article of its own. This has been done.
I also agree with comments that Diageo should have been the brand holder for the Harp brand. That was my mistake.
I have taken on board all comments here, and have separated the Guinness brewery from the Guinness brand. Work is still needed to tidy up both articles and assistance is sought from able editors with an ability to spell. SilkTork12:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sectarianism in Guinness
Anybody have anything on this? The first Catholics were allowed into management in the late 1940s (because of a shortage of Protestants after WWII?) according to a series of letters between former employees exchanged in The Irish Times several years ago. El Gringo18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I just searched The Irish Times archive. The letter in question was in The Irish Times Letters page on January 7th 1999. It was from a Joe Hennessy in Schull, Cork: 'Sir, - John Caden (Opinion, December 24th) described some early memories of Gay Byrne which I found most interesting and praiseworthy. In the interests of accuracy, however, I must point out that my friend Al Byrne was not the first Catholic appointed to the Guinness top staff, as I preceded him in this respect by a number of years, prior to being appointed to the upper management level, the brewers, and my appointment in England as general manager of Harp Lager GB Southern. A great friend of mine and fellow Guinness worker, Brendan Foreman, another Catholic, who studied with me in Dublin over those early hard-working years, was also appointed to the "No.1 staff" at the same time as myself in the 1940s.
I would like to add my congratulations to Al on his achievements in Guinness. - Yours, etc., Dr Joe Hennessy, Schull, Co Cork.'
El Gringo18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I once heard an Irish tourist guide tell his flock that the Guinness family were not Irish, and true, they might not meet the stereotype, but come now. Arthur Guinness was born in Kildare in 1725, the name Guinness is Irish, and though the family now have English connections, they have lived in the Kildare/Dublin area since time out of mind. Being Protestant does not mean you are not Irish. And if they're not Irish, what are they? Certainly not English. Bill Tegner09:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think businesses employ people because they are one religion or another - merely because they are good at their job. From 1886 the public company employed graduates who had first class degrees. Before 1886, even Moravians. Can anyone ref a company document that said 'no Catholics' or 'no blacks' etc.?? Sounds more like the old boy network.Wluki12:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In line with comments in the Merge discussion above - the Guinness beer article has been rewritten, and some material moved into an article on the brewery. Assistance is needed to continue to tidy up the two articles. SilkTork12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I am less then impressed with the spliiting of the article, as now the artile on St James gate has a lot of information that has no relation to the brewery. Also their was noting said about you intensons to slpit this article, and it was barly mentioned nor discussed in the merger discussion, i am seriously considering reverting the changes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be disputed because the connotation of "drug dealer" is not neutral, and in fact if you type that phrase into the search box you would be redirected to Illegal drug trade. Additionally, you'd have to cite sources that prove that, in fact, there are no heroin dealers (for example) that exceed Guinness in some measure. Which points to a third problem, "biggest" by what standard? --LarryMac18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Iron
Is Guinness a good source of Iron or is that just an old wives tale?
I think the iron section should be changed, just because it doesn't have as much Iron as weetabix doesn't mean it isn't a good source of iron. Last time I gave blood I was reading through their documents and it recommened Guinness highly, I'd rather believe the National blood service over a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.50.31 (talk • contribs)
Do you have a cite for this? Can't we just settle this by copying the nutritional informtion off the back of a can, anyway? --Stlemur16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
bernard says:
According to the Irish Voluntary Health Insurance company, VHI, it says a pint of Guinness has 0.3mg of Iron, whereas, say an egg has 1.1mg.
This is a subjective question, but the answer is all relative. I would suggest it is a good source of iron, compared to say a glass of water, something else that is "healthy" and "good for you".
213.94.252.48 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)bernard
Lack of interest in Murphy's
Since the Guinness talkpage (and article) are comparatively a hive of activity, and hopefully some interested people are watching it, I thought I'd post this here.
The intro says that Guinness originated at the James' Gate Brewery when the article itself and fact puts its origins in Leixlip. Surely this should be changed?...
-- Guinness began brewing in Leixlip, but he didn't brew Guinness stout there. Guinness stout originated in James's Gate, some time after 1759 Vernacula (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling(Talk)23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Surger System
The Article says right now that the surger system isn't meant to be sold to regular customers.
But as a matter of fact i got a surger system last night at a guiness Party in cologne... So why should guiness do that without the intention to sell surger systems? ;)
--NackteElfe15:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I got one in Dortmund. What Diageo (Germany) do and what the intended direction of the mother company is are two completely different things. I read somewhere that the "Surger" was supposed to be sold only to private persons but have since seen it mounted in pubs. As a private person where are you going to buy the special cans for your surger? Some prize! TinyMark19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ad Slogans
Anyone have a source for all those ad slogans? I've seen a few of them (e.g., "Lovely Day for a Guinness"), but "Drink Guinness for a healthy baby and painless birth" seems like it may be a hoax.--Alta-Snowbird14:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
New Test Variety in UK
I just spotted an article on fox news about a new variety of Guinness that they are testing in the UK. I haven't been able to find anything else about it at this time, so if somebody else wants to take a stab at it, good luck. Here is the link to the article: [3] --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that it was briefly mentioned in the varieties section. Is there any more information out there about the variety? --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the Advertising section needs to be of only the most notable advertising, the Benson advertising, the award winning advertising and such. It shouldn't be a depository for every single ad campaign the company has ever done, especially recent advertsing campaigns.--Gangster Octopus16:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The same thought struck me forcibly as I read. Also I don't think awards given by the advertising awards industry alone make an ad notable enough for inclusion here. I'd like to see this section pruned down to the Gilroy stuff, the Surfer ad, and perhaps the Guaglione one (which was a genuine phenomenon in Ireland, though for evidence of this I can only trust in later, better Wikipedians than I.) 86.42.111.25105:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You want evidence of the phenomenon that was Joe McKinney and his pint? When it was played on the big screen at Féile in 1995 it got a bigger reaction than any of the acts. Just a shame the camera phone hadn't yet been invented...
Whatever criteria are used for pruning this section, I think the Christmas ad should stay because it has been running for so long now. Vernacula09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed the parenthetical (incorrectly) from in front of the words Snake Bite. If "Snake Bite" is the common American term for Guinness and Cider, then calling it "incorrect" is POV.
It's like saying Americans incorrectly call Lorries "trucks." It's not incorrect. It's regional.
New Irish spelling
Just out of curiosity ...
The Irish spelling of "Is fearrde ṫú" "Guinness is Good for You" in the picture near the top of the article - it's old spelling, right?
How would the same phrase be spelled in modern Irish?
I guess that ṫú is now thú, but what about fearrde? I don't really know Irish, but i don't remember seeing double-r anywhere. Sorry if it's a stupid question.
I have added citation tags to the "Pouring and Serving" section because there are no references in the section. Also I dispute the information given there. Pushing the tap forwards has no effect except for making the Guinness flow slower. When I learnt to pour Guinness (in England), I was always told to push the tap forwards. When I was awarded my "Perfect Pint" certificate, the Guinness (Germany) people said that it does not matter. The only advantage of the slower pour is in avoiding overfilling the glass and part of the head running down the side. The Guinness head tends to rise slightly after pouring has stopped. As far as the head consistency is concerned: all Guinness exported to mainland Europe is pasteurised before export and you will never get a firm head that keeps a motif after the second swallow. TinyMark19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the first of those citation tags: this is empirically observable. I agree that the second statement is incorrect. I propose its removal, citation tag and all.
I also disagree that finishing a pint with a forward pour reflects negatively on the barman, especially if the article is amended to say that the direction of the finishing pour doesn't make any difference. Vernacula10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Breweries
I think something should be added about where Guiness is brewed. I know the Guiness and Harp we buy here in the United States is brewed in Canada. Anyone know of other breweries? I also know the taste is significantly different, anyone have the expertise to comment on this?
Okay, someone changed my edit that said that isinglass is not vegetarian. The article now says that isinglass is not vegan. While this is true, it is not suitable for vegetarians either. The article on vegetarianism very clearly states that "Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes all animal flesh, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products.[1]" Since the isinglass is taken from dead fish, it is not a vegetarian product at all. Nanten19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Any chance someone who knows could add information on the cans with the little ball inside that makes the Guinness pour more like draught from a keg? I don't know how that works, came here to find out, anyway have heard that Guinness won some sort of award for the innovation. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In the composition category, it says something about how charging the beer with N2 and CO2 (nitrogen and carbon dioxide) instead of only carbon dioxide allows the beer to be put in high pressures without becoming "fizzy". Beer, and all other carbonated beverages, become "fizzy" because of the drop of pressure when opening the high pressured can to the atmosphere. Henry's law says that the solubility of the gas in a liquid decreases with the decrease of pressure or the increase in temperature. Obviously, the temperature is not drastically increasing when you open a can and make it fizzy, so the pressure must be dropping, not rising if bubbles are coming out (gas is being evolved from the liquid).
I think the article should state "So Nitrogen is less soluble than carbon dioxide, which allows the beer to be put under LOW pressure without making it fizzy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhjr23 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Fact: Beer is usually driven at around 1–1.3 bar, whereas Guinness recommends a pressure of 2.2–2.8 bar. So the pressure is definitely higher! Fact: Guinness reacts with a high concentration of CO2 and the subsequent head would make up around 4/5 of the drink. The pressure drops as the beer comes out of the tap. The pressure needs to be high to force the beer through the five pinholes in the plate (creamer) inside the tap, which causes smaller bubbles to form. Hope this clears it up. TINYMARK23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about when you open the can. I was thinking the author was talking about opening a can of Guinness to the atmosphere and not having bubbles. Since the cans are natively at the partial pressure of the gas dissolved in then (in this case N2, then opening it to the atmosphere will cause a significant drop in pressure, which USUALLY results in bubbles evolving from the soda. I have no idea what the 5 pinholes are and wasn't referring to it. I could be talking about a whole different thing, but I think looking up Henry's constant for the solubility of N2 in water would be good to say if it is going to be more or less fizzy than normal beer for when you go to drink it.
Guinness and oysters
Guinness used to use marketing to suggest that Guinness and oysters are a perfect combination. There's an old-Irish-style pub in West London - run by Tom Conran - called "The Cow", that is renowned for seafoood: it has old Guinness ads on the walls that suggest Guinness and oysters are synonymous with each other.
Anybody know anything of the history of this?
Also: anybody (Guinness employees?) know anything about the "Guinness tastes different in Ireland" concept? As opposed to, say, London? If this "different recipe" idea is true (and not just a perception thing), should not the "Ireland Guinness" version be mentioned in the article under "Varieties"? Perhaps it will still just come under "draught", but at least it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.129.83 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I could understand why Guinness would deny the question that Guinness tastes differntly outside Ireland, it would cause them some issues with their marketing.
But I think if you ask any Guinness drinker who has tried Guinness in different countries, they will agree that it does taste different.
The reasons, could be wide, but some publicans mention the nitrogen content in kegs for export market is higher, therefore making this one possibility for a difference in taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.252.48 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Guinness America gets, vs everywhere else
This isn't news, I'm sure, but there has to be something to it. The Guinness sold in the US is considerably weaker than Guinness sold elsewhere. What's the story with this? Carson Daly, even mentioned this on his talkshow in its second season. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as the ABV I see where you are coming from. However, with Guiness, the U.S. is no exeption. The alcohol content of this beer practically varies by country, for whatever reasons...--Metalhead94 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Like most industrially produced beers, Guinness is brewed using high-gravity methods which allow the strong finished beer to be diluted to whatever ABV the market requires. Differences in licensing laws and excise duties make different strengths more cost effective in different locations. Anyway, what ABV is American Guinness? (Sorry, forgot to sign this.) Signed by Vernacula (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well then I don't know where the notion that it's weaker in the States comes from. As the article says, it's generally 4.2% in Ireland and the rest of Europe. Vernacula (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've heard this from enough well-traveled people over the years to know that there has to be something to it. Also, are the only two Guinness types available in the US are Draught and Extra Stout? If there are more then they must only be available in special beer-focused stores. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Slang
Adding slang terms related to Guinness is going to be problematic. One editor has contacted me over this issue with the rather unusual qualifier that he is a resident of Dublin, Ireland, whilst I am not. It's not obvious why this is relevant, unless there is a case for saying Dublin slang for Guinness is more noteworthy than, say, Barnsley slang for Guinness. Anyway, I digress... such material should not be included in any article unless it can satisfy core Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:N. In order to do this, reliable sources will be needed; if the terms are indeed noteworthy, I'm sure there'll be coverage in newspapers, books or magazines. If not, they are basically trivial cruft and/or neologisms that really have no place on Wikipedia (see WP:NOT). But if sources emerge, feel free to reinstate! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, some sources have been added. The one from the official Guiness site is fine, and that information can probably be incorporated into the body of the article proper. dublinpeople.com would be a great source (being a newspaper), but unfortunately the bits used are the user-edited slang dictionary, which cannot be used as a reliable source, for the same reason we don't use urbandictionary.com or indeed Wikipedia itself as a source. The same goes for irishcultureandcustoms.com... it's a self-published source so unreliable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, the reason that I believe that Dublin/Irish slang for Guinness holds more weight then say 'Barnsley Slang' is that Dublin is the home of Guinness. People don't go to Barnesley to take tours of the Guinness Brewery or sit outside Davy Byrne's Pub. Also, knowing the alternative names for Guinness in it's home town/country is an advantage for visitors to our fair isle.
Hehe. Yes, I know. However you'd still need a source stating explicitly that Dublin slang is more noteworthy :). But seriously... I'll leave it as is for the time being, but you need decent sources or it's getting deleted. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Guinness appreciation
Hi, I am the person who has added the link to the Guinness Monday website. GM is not a for-profit society, we have no money (indeed, one could argue that due to Guinness we have less money...): our sole purpose for forming the society is to educate people about Guinness, culture, its place in society, and what it is and is not.
We regularly hold events at which we discuss Guinness and what it really means.
We also have the project of archiving all Guinness television and radio advertisments on our website. The idea of GuinnessMonday.com is to be a place where people can find out more about Guinness, both the drink and what it means.
This is the reason I added the link to the Guinness Wikipedia page.
Anybody know if a pint of Guinness needs to settle have way through the pour? I was talking to a man knowledgeable about such things and he alluded to the introduction of nitro kegging and how it made it redundant to now let the pint settle half way. He contended it is simply a marketing gimmick these days. What truth is in this? Thanks. 86.44.44.218 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If you tip the glass to the side and let it out slowly at first, letting the rest pour carefully too, you should get all the way to the top without too big a head (too small a head sometimes) but you will still need (if you really need to!) to let it settle for a minute or so. The stuff in the can doesn't take so long to settle but still needs to be poured carefully. (it's because the stuff is quite thick and the bubbles don't burst so quickly as in beer) ~ R.T.G22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)