Talk:Mount Pleasant Winery

Vintage commemorations

Hi All,

I am associated with Mount Pleasant Winery and we are seeking some opinions and feedback so please help!

We have a content issue that appears to have caused five plus different editors to make too many edits.

Anyway, Mount Pleasant Winery puts verbage on the back of their Vintage Port bottles to commemorate the year that the vintage is from. It varies from personal events of the owner to global events and a lot of stuff in between. For instance, 1993's vintage was to commemorate the Great Flood of the Midwest US. Obviously, it has been around for a while and has a following.

We have been asked by customers, interested parties and non interested parties to list the Vintage commemorations on the main article for Mount Pleasant Winery. We have two issues:

The first is the sourcing of the reference. That issue is really, really dry and it involves whether the government certifications of the label constitute an accurate and reliable source. That discussion is on the wikipedia verifiable source talk page. If you are into that sort of reference science, please comment there. It involves something completely different than what we are asking here.

We are asking the about the other issue: is it worthy content for wikipedia. The two veins of thought that we are seeing is that is alright because it is similar to a listing of songs on a music album, which commonly occurs in wikipedia. The other vein is that it is self promoting. We want your comments so we can try to get some sort of consensus. I ask two things: please do not edit the main article page about this subject until this has been discussed. Second, please do not send emails to the winery! This is the forum for the discuss whether it is worthy of wikipedia.

So let me formally put it out there and let's here some good opinions. I am declaring that I am an interested party to Mount Pleasant Winery and I would like to place into the main article a simple listing of the years where the vintage has been commemorated with verbage on the back of the Vintage Port bottle and I would like to list next to the year what that verbage is (using the government certificates as reference.)

Thanks!!!! Mowineguy (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I've been following the dispute about the worthiness of the content and self-promotion, and this case is one of the clearest cases of self-promotion I've witnessed. No offence intended, but I can't see anything really notable about the winery except the date of foundation, which (in my opinion) is sufficient for inclusion of a short article in Wikipedia. However, the verbage on your labels is completely out of the question (again in my own opinion). User Agne27 has provided you with several guidelines which should settle the question relatively simply.

Also, it's not really the done thing to ask people not to edit the main article. Anyone is free to edit if they see a need to do so. There are also procedures for dealing with edit-wars, should the situation deteriorate (hopefullly it will not).--BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Tomas e (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean not to edit the main article for other things, I just mean on this subject. I get notices everytime from customers that when the page gets changed and it seems as if there were many edits about this subject and some left the main article not looking right, such as with references for footnotes that didn't exist. I find that many people use wiki as a great source for information as opposed to our company website. I admit that if I want information on someone such as an actor or actress, I usually go to wikipedia first as opposed to the actor's website. That just may be me, but I find that people use the wikipedia as a great reference tool for facts, etc. Thanks for your comment Mowineguy (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the responses above. The verbage on the wine labels is non-encyclopedic content, crossing the line over into promotion. Many people with a conflict of interest come to Wikipedia intending to use it as a channel for advertising. Wikipedia is not for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Largest in Missouri

Currently, both Mount Pleasant's and Les Bourgeois' Wiki pages say that they are the third largest wineries in Missouri. Obviously, both can't be true.Trinite (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

We are making the following primary source edits for accuracy and to complete incomplete information. Secondary sources could include the state of Missouri or the St. Louis Business Journal if an editor would like to validate.

1) Mount Pleasant is owned by a private corporation and we have changed the listing of owners to their respective office holdings. 2) Mount Pleasant grows the Chambourcin grape variety. 3) Mount Pleasant now exports out of the United States. 4) Correcting that the fine issued by the state was not or is not to Mount Pleasant Winery.

thanks all,

in vino veritas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.90.162 (talk) 16:41:33

Thanks for the updates! In the future, please be careful when you're editing - your edits to the talk page deleted previous discussions which should not be done. I've restored them, and moved your post to a new section at the bottom. The WP:TALK page has some tips on general talk page etiquette. Ravensfire (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of an old J-School class! Your first three edits are fine and I don't think that anything is really achieved by a secondary source. These are statements that are not qualitative. That is, you are issuing raw data. There is nothing where you put a quality into these statements such as "Chambourcin is the best grape to grow in my vineyards..." where you are enhancing your own facts. You just state that you grow chambourcin. The last edit is a small issue that is hair splitting. You are not the primary source on the edit. The state of missouri is. However, you really aren't changing the secondary source document or its intent so it's probably fine. It's a fine hair, but it's still a point to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneintwelve (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's good to stand then let's let it stand as I didn't go to J-school, but I understand where you are coming from. Is there a better way to have done it the fourth edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.90.162 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

well normally you write a letter to the publisher, but that doesn't really apply in this forum. If you'd agree to this, let's use a very basic journalistic reason for the fourth edit that you are making the journaling of the 2nd source to more accurately reflect the action of the primary. I'm condensing down a pretty big subject, but when you have a good primary source and secondary source such as the state of Missouri and the Post-Dispatch, journaling the event needs to keep the secondary and primary in sync with each other. You find more of an issue with broadcast journalism than in print, but it still applies here and your edit is fine because of it.

Friedrich Munch

Hi all,

I am associated with Mount Pleasant and we cannot find any evidence that Friedrich Munch founded the winery. Does anyone have any source documentation on it? Otherwise, we'd like to strike his name from the list of founders. Our belief is that George Munch founded and operated the winery due to documents that we have. This doesn't mean that he was the only one, we just do not have any documents to show that Friedrich founded the winery.

We'd also like to add to the varietal listings Vidal Blanc, Chambourcin and St. Vincent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowineguy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)