Jump to content

Talk:Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pappy Van Winkle)

November 2007

[edit]

Whoever wanted to remove this page is obviously not a bourbon fan. I see nothing wrong with the entry here. I removed any text indicating how it might taste or what awards the bourbon may have (or have not) won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaplansa (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 November 2007

The present article and subsequent events make that unfulfilled desire look especially ill-advised. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

Regarding this:

"It is the bourbon everyone wants, which no one can get; the distilled spirits equivalent of Unobtainium.[11] Except for the lack of supply, it is a marketer's dream.[4][11]"

If these are quotes, please attribute them (tell us in the text of the article who said this). See Wikipedia:Quotations. If they are not quotes, they seem like WP:OR to me, and the first one, at least, is not true. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement, referring to "unobtanium", is reported as fact in the first sentence of the cited Wall Street Journal article. That article and the other cited article in The Atlantic (and general descriptions found in other cited articles and the articles they reference in turn) should suffice to clearly establish the exceptional demand-to-supply ratio for this product. I think the statements are actually rather well supported if you read the literature – this is one case where the praise does not necessarily originate from the marketing department of the company that makes the product. However, I agree that perhaps we should either use direct quotes or seek a more neutral way of phrasing that – lest we be accused of being lacking in objectivity (which may be true, but is best to avoid revealing too readily). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of these two claims: "everyone wants," and "no one can get." I don't see these supported by the source. I can supply counter-sources if you want, but I hope it's obvious to you that these statements are false. As to the unobtainium claim, the source actually says "you could call it ... unobtainium" which is not the same as "the equivalent of Unobtainium." I also don't see either source saying it's a "marketer's dream," can you quote where it says this in the source? Also please point me to where in the given source it says that "Bourbon aficionados have shown up in droves to get a small chance in a lottery to purchase some." Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BarrelProof. If you want to substitute direct quotations from those articles, with an in line statement as to the source, I don't mind. The references were there when I put the material in, but I did not put in a statement that "According to The Financial Times . . ." If you want to do that, have at it. But the sense of these was reflected in the sources, the sources were cited in the footnotes, and were not WP:OR. I don't do original research and put it into Wikipedia. These were meant to either be quotes (if they were in quotation marks) or were meant to be paraphrases (reflecting what was in the sources). And I put them in and accept responsibility for the material.
As I recall, the word "unobtainium was in one of the articles used by some professional writer; and it would obviously be a metaphor, not to be taken literally. Here is a recent article, the very title of which suggests a like conclusion: Knowlton, Andrew (November 19, 2013). "10 Great Affordable Bourbons (or Ryes) to Buy When You Can't Find Pappy Van Winkle". Bon Appetit. Retrieved July 27, 2014. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm not making myself clear. Let me try again. We have this statement: "It is the bourbon everyone wants, which no one can get." It is sourced to "Pappy Van Winkle, The Bourbon So Popular Even Billionaires Can’t Find It" in the Wall Street Journal. I can't find anywhere in that article where it says this. In fact the article quotes Julian Proctor Van Winkle saying "nobody is drinking bourbon anymore" which seems to contradict the claim that "everyone wants" this bourbon. It also says "this online store was selling a 23-year old bottle for $570 and the 10-year old for $116" which contradicts the claim that "no one can get" it. If the source not only doesn't support what we say in the article, but actually contradicts it, we must remove those statements.

We also have this claim: "it is a marketer's dream" sourced to both the WSJ story and to "Where Did the Missing 65 Cases of Pappy Van Winkle Whiskey Go?" in The Wire. The words "marketer," "marketing," and "dream" do not appear in either source, and neither source discusses marketing. If the source doesn't support what we say in the article, we must remove those statements. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article also says that the online store that listed it at those prices is sold out. And Julian Van Winkle's self-deprecating comments about hypothetical future prospects are obviously not meant to be taken as literally true at the current time – e.g., they contradict the obvious surge in the general and premium bourbon market, and he's simultaneously quoted as saying "We have people with literally billions of dollars who can’t find a bottle. They could buy a private jet in cash. They’d have an easier time buying our company." Anyhow, no worries – you're right that we should make the sourcing more direct. Meanwhile, I'll console myself with members of what the WSJ recommends by saying "If You Can't Find Pappy, These Will Make You Happy". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you'll find the phrase "marketing dream" in the second (non-quote) paragraph of the Atlantic Wire article entitled "The Bourbon Everyone Wants But No One Can Get", which is cited as reference [2]. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps obviously, we should be able to use that same article to back up the phrase you referred to ("the bourbon everyone wants but no one can get") – since it's approximately identical to that headline. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase also appears in the other Atlantic Wire article, so I just added a citation for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you fix the ref for "marketing dream" please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're still missing a source for "Bourbon aficionados have shown up in droves to get a small chance in a lottery to purchase some." Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four sources to answer your query.
Brantley, Chris (June 2, 2014). "When You Can Find (Maybe) a Taste of Pappy Van Winkle in 2014". Retrieved July 9, 2014. Gibson, Kevin (December 10, 2013). "Looking for a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle bourbon? Good Luck". Insider Louisville. Retrieved July 9, 2014. "Bourbon fans lineup for Pappy Van Winkle raffle". WHAS 11. Louisville, Kentucky. Retrieved July 9, 2014. Morris, Whitney Harrod. "The Search for the Elusive Kentucky Bourbon". Retrieved July 9, 2014.
If those four sources aren't good enough, you can google "Pappy Van Winkle lottery" and there are many more. 03:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but I don't really need to see them here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry you don't like what they say, or you choose to ignore them. Your editing is becoming disruptive. WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this: "Except for the lack of an adequately large supply". The source says "age-old marketing dream (a product that can't be kept on the shelves." These two statements contradict each other. We say it's a marketing dream despite the inadequate supply, the source says it's a marketing dream because of the inadequate supply. How do you reconcile this?
Also, could you please explain why you reverted my other two edits? You forgot to say in your edit summary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a conundrum. It's not a "marketing dream" if you have no (or little) product to sell. Exclusivity is one thing. Cachet is nice. Cachet and exclusivity to the point of extinction doesn't help the company's bottom line much. The company sells T-shirts and hats, but what is that worth, except to increase the cachet without increasing the supply of Pappy Family Reserve. Thus, there are all these article (and many more) which address the alternative bourbons (and rye whiskeys) you can buy when you can't get Pappy. Whether the product is overrated or not is sort of irrelevant. Particularly if you can't get it.
Another important point is the inelasticity of supply. By definition, 20 and 23 year old bourbon had to begin the process a long time ago. Assuming they play that straight, it requires some real long term foresight and production planning. Adding to the problem with these extreme times in the rickhouse and barrel is the inherent loss of product, i.e., Angels' share. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the given sources don't even talk about marketing, so I'll focus on the one that does. It says this: "It's an age-old dilemma (supply and demand) leading to an age-old marketing dream (a product that can't be kept on the shelves ... money in the pockets ... bourbon in the bourbon snifters)." It does not mention cachet, exclusivity, the bottom line, T-shirts, alternative bourbons, whether the product is overrated, elasticity of supply, aging, production planning, or the angel's share. We could go with a quote, or something closer to what the source says. But I don't think we should say something that is directly contradicted by the source. What would you think of a quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just discussing the issue, not putting it in the article. Didn't think I had to source every jot and tittle in a discussion on the talk page. In any event, Moss, Josh; Witzke, Chris. photographer (July 2013). "The Best Bourbon You'll Never Taste: Inside the Pappy Van Winkle Phenomenon". Louisville Magazine. Louisville, Kentucky. pp. 66-69. 102. Retrieved July 30, 2014. has a good article that puts it all in perspective. Would be a good source for a lot of the material that we have here already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moss, Josh; Witzke, Chris. photographer (July 2013). "The Best Bourbon You'll Never Taste: Inside the Pappy Van Winkle Phenomenon". Louisville Magazine. Louisville, Kentucky. pp. 66-69. 102. Retrieved July 30, 2014. should be used more as an in line reference for more propositions than we have used it already. Comprehensive article on the subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blog sources

[edit]

In this edit: [1] I removed two blog sources. Blogs are largely not acceptable as sources, because anyone can create them and claim to be an expert. See WP:BLOGS. These sources are not needed anyway, because there are two other sources given, and both appear to be reliable (see WP:RS). No change is required to the text of the article, and I made no other change.

I was reverted, with the edit summary "Yes, it does." I do not understand. Can someone tell me why my edit was reverted, and why these blog sources are required and acceptable here? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the blogs, which you say are redundant anyway. My concerns relate mainly to getting something that explains the subject to the readers in terms they will think to be relevant. If you don't have problems with the text, that ends that matter. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to understand why you reverted me. Was there some reason? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did not revert. I did undo what I considered to be a WP:AGF edit, and provided a summary to that effect. I was wrong. Mistakes happen. I apologize. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theft and blog sources

[edit]

Blog sources are not acceptable for BLP material. Please see WP:BLP and WP:BLOGS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a "scope of the rule" issue. The rule does not apply. This is not a BLP issue since this is not a biography. It is an article on a completely different subject matter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does apply. Did you read the links I gave above? The first sentence of WP:BLP says, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." It also says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, article titles and drafts." Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Wheat Whiskey Alternatives to Pappy

[edit]

Flicker, Jonah (February 4, 2015). "5 Wheat Whiskey Alternatives to Pappy". Retrieved February 4, 2015. This might be worth discussing. Thought you might be interested. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gift to the Pope

[edit]

Edans introduced a section from Kentucky.com telling a story of a bottle of this whiskey was given to the Pope. It's a fun story but I don't think it rises to the level of being a notable event for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It strikes me as more of a "fun fact" and promotional in tone. I reverted this edit. 7&6=thirteen has decided to revert again, so I'm here to solicit any other opinions. --Laser brain (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote / reference 17 is a dead link. Domain 'Insider Louisville' resolves to a 'purchase domain' ad.

[edit]

Footnote / reference 17 is a dead link. Domain 'Insider Louisville' resolves to a 'purchase domain' ad. (I could not figure out how to add the 'dead link' to the article, so I'm making note of it here. Thank you. FactsOverLies (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pappy_Van_Winkle%27s_Family_Reserve&oldid=1208890100"