text:
Talk:Budweiser

Off flavors comment
"...giving it more time to reabsorb and process green beer flavors, such as acetaldehyde and diacetyl, that Anheuser-Busch believes are off-flavors which detract from overall drinkability..."

It is not debated that those chemicals are off flavors at all. There are no styles where acetaldehyde (green apple) flavor is acceptable, and only a handful of beer styles where diacetyl is acceptable (always in very small amounts). You could consult the Beer Judge Certification program style guide (www.bjcp.org) as a source for desired flavors in beer.

I only say all this because I think the clause"anheuser-busch believes..." should be removed since it implies that only AB considers them flaws and they are otherwise not generally considered flaws. Seems almost biased against AB. You could completely remove that clause and still keep the entire meaning of the rest of the statement. 76.100.114.214 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning?
"The Czech Budweiser is sold in some countries as Budejovicky Budvar but is known as Budweiser throughout." Thoughout what or where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.107 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I believe this article may have been vandalized. I believe someone replaced Adolphus Busch with Jack Burrell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.119.143 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

hey,30% or 80% rice ?
I remember a few years ago is 80% rice, why 30% now ? Anheuser Busch was one of them. They survived by converting to cereal beer made from non-fermentable grains like rice. Anheuser still makes its Budweiser from 80% rice, unlike the traditional all-malted barley beer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.111.235.43 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You really need a citation for that. Any beer with 80% rice would be virtually unfermentable. Rice has almost no sugar so it would be next to impossible to make a ~4% abv beer with 80% adjunct 76.100.114.214 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The makers of sake and other rice wines would disagree that rice is unfermentable. Rice and corn used in the production of beer, and all other alcohol production, are reduced to their starch components and combined with enzymes to produce sugars. That sugar is then fermented with the rest of the mash and yeast. MaximZero (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok Rice 101. Non-malted adjuncts such as rice or maize are used in many International lagers outside of Germany, and particularly in American mainstream beers. Miller uses maize. Malted barley contains enzymes called Amylase (Alpha and Beta) that are released on mashing in hot water at the brewery and convert the starches in the malt to fermentable sugars. Most malts have enough spare Amylases to also convert extra starches to sugars. The adjuncts are boiled to a mush - called cooker mash - and added to the main malted barley mash where they, being mostly starch, are converted by the spare enzymes into fermentables. This started in the USA well over a hundred years ago to dilute the proteins found in malts from the six-row barley traditional in American Brewing. These extra proteins were producing unwelcome hazes in the finished beer, at a time when glassware became generally affordable, and although modern malts overcome this problem, the use of cereal adjuncts has continued, this being part of the expected flavour and body of the brews. Around 30% adjucts would be fairly normal, according to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica 50% or more could be used in the USA back then. 80% just wouldn't work, so as posted above a citation would be welcome. The article seems to be a bit confusing as it could be read that the use of adjuncts began during Prohibition, not so. --MichaelGG (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Italics
Why is Budweiser italicized throughout the article? Yes, it is a foreign word, but we don't italicize other brand names. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question, it's half italics, half not italics. C T J F 8 3  15:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead an changed it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Even Adolphus Busch didn't like it.." Is this credible?
This comment, located under the "Beer" section, cites this article, but the article does not cite any credible source (it actually has no citation.) The article, from Salon.com, says, "Adolphus Busch, the dynasty’s founder, called his beer “dot schlop” and drank wine instead.", but I cannot find any information beyond this (except for internet hearsay.) Unless this is a credible claim, and someone has a more credible source, I think that comment should be taken out because it adds little to the article and cannot be verified. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.97.24 (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC) *Edit - forgot to sign* 99.18.97.24 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would vote in favor of removing the comment. 76.100.114.214 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * It's a slander. Busch may well have preferred to drink wine (so what) but the "dot schlop" comment was really a *self-deprecating joke* that he made when a dinner companion ordered a Budweiser in his presence. He wasn't going around secretly cackling about getting the rubes to drink "dot schlop." He was *making a joke.* (the source is *American Mercury*, 1929, quoted [here.](http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/kingofbeer3.shtml)

 * Yeah, Bud is quite bland, but anyone who thinks you can hide bad ingredients or technique in such a bland beer doesn't know anything about brewing. It's a boring beer made very well. 99.249.15.40 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding information about cans under the "Containers and packaging" section
The current article goes into some depth about the Budweiser bottle, but almost entirely ignores other types of packaging. I was planning on adding information specifically related to Budweiser can packaging. Much of this information will be tailored to look at the latest can design change that occurred in 2011, as well as the reasons and possible consequences of the change. Also, I plan on adding a chart, similar to that under the "Bottle" section, for the can. Zlaval (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as you provide proper sourcing sounds like a plan to me. C T J F 8 3  11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian's Budweiser bill
RE: 2014 FIFA World Cup

After numerous deaths in football stadiums, Brazil passed a law in 2003 outlawing alcohol sales in stadiums. FIFA demanded that Brazil allow alcohol sales at the World Cup because Budweiser is a major World Cup sponsor and so it can make Budweiser the "Official Beer of the FIFA World Cup", a role it has played since 1986. In response, Brazil passed a law paving the way for alcohol sales in the World Cup, nicknamed the "Budweiser Bill".

How can this be added to the article? Should it be added to Anheuser-Busch? Wholesomegood (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. This is a difficult close, but I find a rough consensus to move this article to Budweiser. Effectively, three options have been considered: 1) the proposed move (7 in favor), 2) an alternative option moving/restoring the concept dab (now located here) to Budweiser (5 in favor), and 3) leaving the dab page at "Budweiser" ( 4 3 in favor). As such, a majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo, and the proposed move was the best supported of the two changes (I do note that a few participants favoring one change specifically opposed the other). I kept the 4 remaining oppose votes in mind, but gave less consideration to those that did not specifically contend with English use. A no consensus close would leave us in a situation comparatively few participants preferred; I find rough consensus in favor of the best supported individual option. Cúchullain t/ c 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

– By hit count or by links, the American beer is far and away the primary topic for the English-speaking world. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC) p  b  p  13:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) → Budweiser
 * Budweiser → Budweiser (disambiguation)
 * On the face of it oppose - there's no one topic that outnumbers all others put together. but what is going on here? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, clear primary topic among a collection of also-rans. bd2412  T 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear cut primary topic.  Calidum Talk To Me 15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Both are big selling beers with very similar names, the current disambiguation works just fine. There is no evidence to suggest that either is the primary topic as search results will bring up both beers in the search results. Also moving the American beer to the article "Budweiser" would be making Wikipedia take sides in the "Budweiser trademark dispute" and Wikipedia should remain neutral on such issues and not favour either side. IJA (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose IJA makes a very good case. WP should remain neutral bearing in mind the long-running trademark dispute. Edwardx (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A trademark dispute is a poor reason for dictating naming conventions. The dispute is between a large beverage company that gets a lot of hits and is referenced by a lot of other articles; and a smaller beverage company that isn't.  p  b  p  21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Only one article in the list is called simply "Budweiser", i.e. Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch). The others are partial title matches whose relevance vis-à-vis that Budweiser could be considered less, in the spirit of WP:Partial title match.  —  AjaxSmack  01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IJA. Instead I suggest that the trademark dispute article be made primary, as the most educational topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I hate to go against what actually does seem like a fairly clear case of common name, the fairly controversial nature of the topic makes it seem more logical for the Budweiser page to remain a disambiguation page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Anyone searching with "Budweiser" is most likely, by far, searching for this topic. A hatnote can handle the others.   --В²C ☎ 00:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, should we use the first criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is page views? Or the second one, which is long-term educational significance? Oh wait, either way it's a rout. Strong support as per both criteria. Red Slash 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Budweiser should just be turned back into a WP:CONCEPTDAB like it was until July this year. See here for what it looked like and the change into a normal dab. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jenks24 – revert to that nice broad concept article. Good catch. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree, and comment, beer can be a big part of local culture. We have the relatively small and historic Harveys Brewery near us.  If a newer multinational company adopted the same name and took over the Wikipedia name space I would be less than impressed.Gregkaye (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, however, Anheuser–Busch seems to have taken over the Wikipedia space about 140 years ago. bd2412  T 13:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jenks24 - returning to the July 2014 version would be the best way to deal with this issue. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some editors want to restore as a kind of concept DAB. I'm leaving a ping for User:SilkTork since he did some of the July work and moved some of the Budweiser material into Budweiser trademark dispute. He may want to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a viable argument for which approach is more appropriate: a search for "Budweiser" landing the reader on a standard dab page, or on the article about the beer by Anheuser–Busch with a hat note to a dab page. However, I don't see restoring the trademark dispute article with links to other possible Budweiser targets as appropriate or viable. The argument that the page was a WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't hold up, as a broad concept article would need to have topics in common, other than similarity of name, enough that an article could be written, such as Football, Supreme court, or Central Asia. The articles in question here do not share the same topic, two are breweries which simply have Budweiser in their name, one is a beer called Budweiser, one is the town Budweis, and one is a trademark dispute - there is no topic or concept in common, simply a loose connection with the name Budweis or Budweiser. Making the trademark dispute the primary topic is not a viable solution as that appears to be the least likely target for a reader putting in a search for Budweiser, and merely delays and confuses the reader who is searching for either the Anheuser–Busch beer (most likely), or for one of the other topics associated with the name (which may include the trademark dispute, but as page hits indicate, is the least likely target). On page hits Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) with an average monthly hit of 30,000 is the most likely target, and that is more than the combined average of the other articles, which is less than 20,000 a month. All things considered, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria so a search for "Budweiser" should land the leader on that page, with hat notes pointing to the current dab page which would be renamed as Budweiser (disambiguation). That Wikipedia may be influencing the trademark dispute by making the American beer the primary target is worth considering, and makes one hesitate, however a counter argument could be that by not making what is clearly the primary target the primary topic, we are siding with the German breweries. I think we need to lay aside the politics, and simply follow our own guidelines and common sense - what are most readers looking for when they type in a search for "Budweiser": they are searching for the American beer. Therefore: Support.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of the request
How can be a result of the request move, if no consensus was found? I absolutely agree with IJA and others that both are big selling beers, this move would be making Wikipedia take sides in the "Budweiser trademark dispute" and Wikipedia should always remain neutral. Is it legitimate that if others strongly oppose to perform such a move? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MR is the proper venue to have it reconsidered; you should speak with the closing admin before going there if you plan to. But the claim about Wikipedia taking sides is bogus. If we decided to not move the page because of that, it would be akin to censorship.  Calidum Talk To Me 14:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Jirka.h23, please see my closing comments above. My determination was that there was a solid consensus for a change from the status quo, and of the two discussed options, the proposed move had the most support. It was definitely a difficult discussion to close, and I'm always available to discuss my closes further.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely fail to see how the admin concluded that there was any consensus whatever, let alone one in favour of the move. As I count it, four editors supported the move, five said leave it alone and five said redirect it to the trademark dispute. Four v nine is not a consensus. I intend to go to MR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't determined by simply counting votes, but rather by the strength and validity of the underlying arguments.  Calidum Talk To Me 02:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * John Maynard Friedman, you can count me as sixth, i have completely missed this request. I do strongly oppose to such move, as wiki should stay neutral and not to prioritize any sides of the dispute. Unfortunately, i have no experience with "MR". Could you help to arrange this? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seventh. There's more world than just the US, and besides, it's Anheuser-Busch that stole the trademark of breweries from a town named literally Budweis. KiloByte (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * MR created, please get involved. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eighth. Please restore this back to the disambiguation page. SilkTork seems to be biased to move this page in favor of the American brand. 69.116.183.192 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute?
The move review is closed as endorsing the current title. The closing administrator advises us never again using a RM for content disputes. If the dispute is complex, the administrator recommended RFC. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 * The move by Cúchullain was based on an assumption that most readers who type "Budweiser" are looking for an American beer. That assumption distorts some of the facts that we have. The European product gets about 20% of the amount of the monthly hits that the American product gets. Obviously the American gets more hits, because of the US market size compared to English-speaking part of the European market; but 20% is nowhere nearly insignificant proportion, and rather makes sense looking at the markets where the products are dominant. However, the crucial point that has seemingly been missed by the participants of the discussion, is that in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, the only product labeled as "Budweiser" is the European Budweiser Budvar, as it is the sole owner of the "Budweiser" trademark in the EU; and so in the UK and Ireland the American Anheuser-Busch product is not a Budweiser at all even by law (source). Therefore having the American product under the Budweiser article is grossly misleading for readers from the United Kingdom and Ireland; and has a lesser "educational value" for other readers.

 * Besides that, Cúchullain made a decision based on the fact that the "majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo". But dividing the participants into 3 groups with 3 goals and calling the previous situation an undesirable status quo is artificially fragmenting the participants who want to stay brand-neutral and oppose having the American product labeled as just "Budweiser". The brand-neutral position was supported by 8 (+me now is 9) and opposed by 7; but still a move towards one brand was executed.

 * I believe we should remain neutral because the division of what "Budweiser" means is significant even within the English speaking world. I propose that Budweiser redirects to slightly reworked Budweiser (disambiguation) (with added explanation of the meaning of the German word), but at the same time I also support redirecting Budweiser to Budweiser trademark dispute, rather than giving the Budweiser name to one specific brand because that would represent neither the global situation, nor the situation in the English-speaking world but rather just North America.--Der Golem (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, a redirect to Budweiser (disambiguation) should be the best way. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: "Thanks to the registrations of trademarks Budweiser or Budweiser Budvar, that belong to Budějovický Budvar, ABI cannot use its key brand Budweiser in almost 70 countries." (source)--Der Golem (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a redirect to Budweiser (disambiguation) is the best solution. Why hasn't this been done yet.69.116.183.192 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Advertising bias and removal of sourced content
Seems like rather clear violations of Wikipedia's neutrality rules when referenced content is removed about one of Budweiser's sponsors, when a Budweiser venue hosts embattled comedian Bill Cosby -- but lists numerous sponsorships of race car drivers, Clydesdale horses, ad nauseum -- why not include Cosby when it includes all the other sponsorships? Not only that but EVEN talk page commentary is removed -- seems like this page is run by public relations people touting Budweiser and Anheuser-Busch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't sponsor Cosby. That's the difference. It's undue weight and a coatrack to add nonsense about Cosby's alleged criminal acts on the Budweiser page just because their name is on a building where he performed a show. --Onorem (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course Budweiser sponsors Cosby. They own a big venue with the prominent title Budweiser Gardens. It is marketing. At this venue, they host numerous performers and entertainment, all with the idea of the principle of association -- to link, in peoples' minds, the idea of their for-sale beer product with these performers as a way to increase sales; so if the band Metric appears at the Budweiser Gardens, beer drinkers will be positively associated with this music. The word Budweiser is not just a "name on a building" but a PAID choice. When this venue chooses to host events like having embattled comedian Bill Cosby perform at the venue, they are linking the idea of Budweiser + Cosby. There are numerous references to this association here and here which you deleted, which the community might see as a conflict of interest if they think you work for Budweiser or have marketing ties to the parent company or one of its marketing or publicity agencies.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not, and never have, worked for Budweiser or anyone affiliated with Budweiser. Please shove the unfounded accusation somewhere dark. Numerous performers and entertainment, yes...so why focus on Cosby? To make Bud look bad or to get more eyes on the Cosby fiasco by adding it to tangentially related articles? --Onorem (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Budweiser is a prominent beer, spends huge $$ on marketing, uses Cosby to sell beer and beer to sell Cosby and this linkage is referenced in reliable sources. Judd Apatow criticized Budweiser for hosting Cosby. Right now, the whole segment seems to be focused on irrelevant Clydesdale horses; when only one line (with two references) was added about the Cosby issue, it got deleted, sure looks like a cover-up to me, and a violation of WP:NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Budweiser Events Center is operated by Global Spectrum. Bud has their name on the building. Yes, because they hope for a positive association with the acts that pass through...but to say they sponsor him just isn't accurate, and to single him out and bring his current issues into this article is undue. Who cares what Judd Apatow has to say? It's been a while since I've looked at dispute resolution. Perhaps a 3rd opinion is needed. --Onorem (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your view. In terms of processes, I agree that it is probably unlikely that marketing people at Anheuser-Busch had direct control over which performers perform in the venue with the 'Budweiser' label pasted prominently on their site, but if you look at it in terms of results, of course there is a strong association. Anheuser-Busch owns the Budweiser name. They control where the name 'Budweiser' appears. They pay to have their name on a prominent venue which serves alcohol, presumably Budweiser, which is one of America's top brands of beer. Anheuser-Busch marketers have sought to link in customer's minds ideas the positive associations about performers, fun, and Budweiser beer. In this situation, one of the performers at the Budweiser Gardens is a prominent celebrity accused by 32 women (latest count) of drugging and raping them. Like it or not, there IS an association now between a prominent beer brand and an alleged rapist. Not only that, the allegations are that Cosby used alcohol to disguise the drugging. Of course it is possible for Anheuser-Busch to withdraw their name from the site, or forbid the management of the place not to host rapists. It is not some sideline issue when a prominent American filmmaker, Judd Apatow, criticizes Budweiser Gardens for hosting Cosby.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion remains unchanged. When we have some evidence from a reliable source that Anheuser-Busch is informed in advance who plays at their venues, and that it is possible for Anheuser-Busch to withdraw their name from the site, and that it is possible for Anheuser-Busch to forbid the managers and owners of the site from hiring certain acts, then this material might be allowable. But at this stage we have no evidence that this is the case. Based on the reliable sources provided so far and those I have been able to find on my own, Anheuser-Busch does not have the ability to do any of those things. It would be rather extraordinary of they did have those powers. Finding a sponsor for a venue is a really big deal with long-term ramifications in terms of branding, and there are all sorts of legal contracts that prevent sponsors from pulling out. And without some evidence, it seems incredible that someone sponsoring a building would have any ability to forbid the owners from using that building for its intended purpose. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those making claims that Anheuser-Busch have these abilities. Until that is satisfied, the material doesn't belong.Mark Marathon (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS, since inclusion of the material hinges on the assertion that "there IS an association now between a prominent beer brand and an alleged rapist", then we will need to establish that as notable and verifiable in its own right" through the usual means: multiple reliable sources making such a claim. While I don't doubt that you personally make such an association, that alone doesn't make it notable or verifiable. If you can provide the results of a survey making such an association, or you can show multiple non-opinion newspaper articles that make such a claim, then w have something.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Right now we have Judd Apatow criticizing the Budweiser Gardens venue, not the beer directly, but indirectly. When more sources are found, the information will be added.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Please understand, of course, that Bill Cosby and Budweiser have a ten-year association, such that jokes + beer => $$$.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like this conversation has gone a bit stale. I'm planning on removing the tag soon since only one person has voiced their concern with the section. --Onorem (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Budweiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150202210400/http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/bud-proudly-macro-swagger-filled-super-bowl-ad/296932/ to http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/bud-proudly-macro-swagger-filled-super-bowl-ad/296932/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120421081217/http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/08/03/2313953/business-briefs.html to http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/08/03/2313953/business-briefs.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia taking a side in a trademark dispute.
Why is Wikipedia taking a side in a trade dispute? Why is Wikipedia promoting a trademark and what is more a disputed trademark? Has Anheuser-Busch made a big contribution to Wikipedia? Has Anheuser-Busch been threatening Wikipedia? Has Wikipedia moved into advertising? What is happening here.

Budweiser as a definition should go directly describing a person or something coming from Budweis. In a second step it should mention the products or trademarks using Budweiser and than it should not prioritize one product over the other.Jochum (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Is there any other example of such a blatant product promotion in Wikipedia?Jochum (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Have you read the above move discussion? Are you accusing all its participants of corruption? – Smyth\talk 20:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I accuse the decision makers of corruption. You can discus all you want about it as long as you want. But to decide to give a disputed name, reason of many lawsuits in many countries, direct access to one companies trade mark just stinks of corruption. If you show me a similar other occurrence in Wikipedia I would be astonished. This is not about how many people want to read about a trademark of Anheuser and Bush but of the neutrality of the Wikipedia and that went strait out of the window.Jochum (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this article about the Budweiser brand or Anheuser and Busch?
This is a very strange article, especially as there is a separate article regarding the Anheuser-Busch company, this article should concentrate on the Budweiser brand and leave the history of Anheuser-Busch to the that named article.Jochum (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 * @Jochum This article is about the American lager beer produced by Anheuser-Busch, named Budweiser. Somehow this article was moved from its original title Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) to Budweiser. Despite the fact that majority was against this specific move, it was judged as a consensus for a move, arguing that "a majority of all participants favored a change over the status quo", even though the majority did't favor that the title "Budweiser" is given to this brand. There was neither an explanation on how a majority prefers taking side in Budweiser trademark dispute over "status quo", nor how is a "status quo" an undesirable status. In contrary, a majority of participants favored to stay brand-neutral, which is the opposite of what was done.--Der Golem (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * one strange thing in this article is talking about Budweiser Brands, Budweiser is a brand not a owner of brands, the owner of the different brands is Anheuser-Busch.Jochum (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Jochum I understand the section titled Budweiser to be describing the brands (like Bud Light) that are associated with or derived from the main brand, called Budweiser. I don't think that ownership comes into it. I think that you have found an opportunity for improving this part of the article, as it could be confusing.

 * Concerning your initial statement: I have noticed that it is common for people from the United States to refer to the company as Budweiser even though it is really called Anheuser-Busch. Does this help to explain why you find the article confusing? I have not ever seen any marketing communications from Anheuser-Busch discouraging or clarifying this distinction. I am not an expert in marketing, but I would guess that it's better for sales if consumers assume that each family of brands is independent. My Gussie (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Any reason not to move it back? Would make sense to me... —Luis (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per wp:fork, I deleted the section called 'history' because it was a history of Anheuser Busch, not of (US) Budweiser. If somebody is keen, it is worth transcribing into the AB-Inbev article, respecting the authorship of previous editors (I've forgotten the mechanism).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The last move discussion at Talk:Budweiser in fall 2014 was hotly contested, and the result was taken to Move Review. The current name is the result of that discussion. Unclear whether it is worth the turmoil of a new move discussion, when we can anticipate more disagreement and something close to a tie vote again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed If the OP has a different idea of what this page should be, do a mock-up in a sandbox and put it where we can see it. Otherwise, let it rest. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I closed the last RM two years ago, based on my reading of the consensus. The decision was challenged at move review, and the decision was endorsed. If there's another move it needs to be through another consensus, and it doesn't strike me as likely. I imagine the time and effort will be better spent improving the articles than moving them around again.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is such a blatant breach of the neutrality of the Wikipedia. You Cúchullain do not seem to understand the word consensus. Consensus is not a majority decision and also not what most people want. Consensus is a decision that everybody involved can live with. A decision making Wikipedia a part of the Anheuser and Busch advertisement campaign is something I can not live with.Jochum (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The move discussion occurred two years ago and was endorsed at move review. If you still disagree, you can start a new RM if you wish, but it doesn't seem likely that you'll find a different consensus. And again, my opinion is that the time and effort would be better spent cleaning up the articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the base of neutrality. Wikipedia should not endorse a brand owned by one company above the same brand owned by another company. It is plain advertising this move and I am astonished that you do not see it.Jochum (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some articles that cover only one specific (very popular) beer. e.g. Pilsner Urquell. But much more often, the article is about a brewing company with coverage of individual beers within that brand. See Castle Brewery and Miller Brewing Company, for example. Frankly, that does seem to be the best bet.

i.e. Make this Bud article into a section of the Anheuser-Busch InBev article that I have done a lot of updating on.

Frankly, the current content is probably too long, and will then need some condensing. For example, this is the total coverage of Michelob.

''Michelob is a 5% ABV pale lager developed by Adolphus Busch in 1896 as a "draught beer for connoisseurs".[13] In 1961, Anheuser-Busch produced a pasteurized version of Michelob which allowed legal shipment of the beer across state lines. Bottled beer began to be shipped soon after, and the brand was introduced in cans in 1966. Bottled Michelob was originally sold in a uniquely shaped bottle named the teardrop bottle because it resembled a water droplet. The teardrop bottle was awarded a medal from the Institute of Design in 1962. Five years later the bottle was redesigned for efficiency in the production line. This bottle was used until 2002 when it was dropped in favor of a traditional bottle. The teardrop bottle was used again from January 2007 to October 2008.''

Would Bud deserve more space than that?? Peter K Burian (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Logo should be PD?
I am posting this here because nobody will see it on the talk page of the logo. The logo is just text with a simple crown graphic and probably should be available as simple public domain text file under Template:PD-logo. A good example of "not meeting threshold of creativity" is File:Best_Western_logo.svg, which oddly enough also involves a crown.- Ich (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Will merge this page into the Anheuser-Busch page
See the discussion in Is this article about the Budweiser brand or Anheuser and Busch?. While it is not a majority opinion, we may have a consensus that this article should not stand on its own. It discusses one of the many brands of the Anheuser-Busch InBev company. Hence, it should be one of the brands discussed in that article.

Unless several users disagree, I will merge the Budweiser content into the Anheuser-Busch article. Before doing so, Budweiser will need condensed since it's much too long. No beer company article on Wikipedia devotes that much space to any single brand.

WP:CON :''Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i.e. to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.'' Peter K Burian (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. I support this proposal. The article as it stands has frequently fallen into wp:FORK as people [quite reasonably] want to include the history of the American brewers. This change will resolve that issue and I can't think of any new issues it will generate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd object to a merge. This is one of the best known beer brands in the world and there are plenty of sources discussing it that justify a distinct article. Just remove the duplication with the company's page.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The American Budweiser beer, however you feel about how it tastes, deserves a standalone article, just like Miller Lite and Coors Light do. I support either sourcing or removing any unsourced statements and merging any content not specifically related to the Budweiser brand onto the AB page.- Ich (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Ich. Subject is far too notable to be merged into a parent article. If info overlaps, that's a content issue that should be fixed on the respective articles. Lizard (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I just did a lot of cleanup. Much of the text was unencyclopedic or discussing non-notable ad campaigns. I also don't believe a 1-year sponsorship contract of NASCAR drivers in the 80s merits mention; I left the longer contracts and some of the events they had previously paid the naming rights for (although this list can be shortened, too). I added refs, too. I would welcome feedback, but I think this covers many of the objections the nominator had. I could still remove about a paragraph worth of text but don't want to go overboard.- Ich (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment
The article is not neutral, Historically "Budweiser" comes from the town of České Budějovice, the name "Budweiser" should not be used solely as disambiguation for the Anheuser–Busch brewed Beer! The title should be moved from Budweiser -> Budweiser (Anheuser–Busch), the current title has a bias towards US American readers.

The argument that "Budweiser" stands for (Anheuser–Busch) in the English speaking world is true! Counter: Firstly - this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. Secondly - the internationality that English has acquired demands a title not based on colloquialism or one specific countries' traditions but neutral and descriptive facts. The current title does not fulfil these criteria and is to some extend misleading. Requests for comment! Bengt Hennig (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 * This has been discussed before. See Move review/Log/2014 September which endorsed the consensus solution of the current status quo. Although I don't agree, I will still live with it.- Ich (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Support a proper RfC with templates, sufficient publicization to get enough input and all per WP:RFC. The issue is still clearly highly contested after a move request which did not even have the scope to deal with it. The final closer of the 2014 move review referenced above commented that RfC is exactly the right place to discuss the article title: "(...) however, using requested moves to settle content issues is outside its scope (and would be outside the scope of the closer to factor in). For complex content decisions, consider opening a request for comment, which can have multiple options, including a proposal to move various articles around." Manelolo (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budweiser. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128193838/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-exposes-anheuser-bu to http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-exposes-anheuser-bu

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move June 6 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  ~SS49~   {talk}  13:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Budweiser → Budweiser (AB InBev) – This is a discussion per WP:BRD, and the proposed move does not precisely duplicate any previously proposed move. The name "Budweiser" is the subject of the Budweiser trademark dispute, a long-running series of international legal disputes concerning the ownership and use of the Budweiser name. In some juristictions AB InBev has sole control of the name, and in some others Budweiser Budvar has sole control. The current title of this article is a violation of WP:NPOVTITLE in that it gives apparent support to one of the parties in this dispute. Tammbeck talk  11:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this objection. Wikipedia should not take sides in a trademark dispute. WP:COMMON NAME does not apply because it territory dependent (US v Europe).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose. It's not unusual for Wikipedia to "take a side" in a dispute based on prevalence in reliable sources, such as Senkaku Islands and Sea of Japan. Here, English-language sources overwhelmingly use "Budweiser" to refer to Budweiser (AB InBev) rather than Budweiser Budvar Brewery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠</b> 22:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose By the very basic foundations of WP:COMMONNAME the single word title is the more appropriate for the English language Wikipedia doktorb wordsdeeds 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, and an English speaker searching for "Budweiser" is looking for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Aoba47 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The governing concern here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The American beer got 85% of the article traffic compared to the Czech beer, despite the fact that it wasn't at the base name "Budweiser" for two months.|Budweiser_Budvar_Brewery This is pretty clear cut.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cuchullain's data shows this is the clear-cut primary topic.  Calidum   15:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and . It is clear that Budweiser (AB InBev) is the primary article in the English-speaking world. – Northwest Passage talk 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromise solution
I have seen that the majority prefers keeping the name Budweiser for this article because of WP:COMMONNAME, but it still can create some confussion. What about renaming this article Budweiser (AB InBev), but keeping the redirect Budweiser for this article. By keeping the redirect for this article Budweiser we respect [WP:COMMONNAME]], but by adding "(AB InBev)" to the name of the article, we increase the precision. SFBB (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know we don't count votes in most circumstances, only an almost universally rejected move proposal really doesn't need a "compromise". A move proposal was made, it was wholly rejected, and I think we just move on now. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I get the point, but you don't think it would be better to explicitly show here that this article is about Budweiser by AB InBev and not Budweiser Budwar (to avoid any confusion). The way I'm proposing also would avoid that someone searching for Budweiser by AB InBev would end up in an incorrect article (or a disambiguation).
 * Maybe, I should not have framed this proposal as "compromise solution", but rather as new proposal to reduce ambiguity. Frankly, I do not see any major advantage of the solution that is currently in place over this idea, while I do see an advantage of this option (avoiding that people searching for Budweiser Budwar not immediately noticing that they're on the wrong article - note that Budweiser by AB InBev is not very well-known in many European countries and that enwiki isn't only used in English-speaking countries but also by English-speaking people). SFBB (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Beer
The section labelled 'Beer' states, "Budweiser is produced using barley malt, rice, water, hops and yeast" Labelling requirements in the EU are very strict and require that the ingredients are accurate and listed in order of quantity. The Budweiser label states that the ingredients are water, rice, corn syrup, barley, malt extract, hop extract and yeast. There are two serious differences. First there is the addition of corn syrup and second, according to the label, Budweiser contains neither malt nor hops.OrewaTel (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and correct it, citing the label as source, with reference to the labelling regulations that require the label to be accurate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

requesting removal of not enough sources in section
There is a total of 28 sources in that section now, which I think is enough sources. Grapefanatic (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Budweiser


text:
Bermuda Triangle

The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is an urban legend focused on a loosely defined region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean where a number of aircraft and ships are said to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances. The idea of the area as uniquely prone to disappearances arose in the mid-20th century, but most reputable sources dismiss the idea that there is any mystery.

Origins
The earliest suggestion of unusual disappearances in the Bermuda area appeared in an article written by Edward Van Winkle Jones of the Miami Herald that was distributed by the Associated Press and appeared in various American newspapers on 17 September 1950.

Two years later, Fate magazine published "Sea Mystery at Our Back Door", a short article by George X. Sand that was the first to lay out the now-familiar triangular area where the losses took place. Sand recounted the loss of several planes and ships since World War II: the disappearance of Sandra, a tramp steamer; the December 1945 loss of Flight 19, a group of five US Navy torpedo bombers on a training mission; the January 1948 disappearance of Star Tiger, a British South American Airways (BSAA) passenger airplane; the March 1948 disappearance of a fishing skiff with three men, including jockey Albert Snider; the December 1948 disappearance of an Airborne Transport DC-3 charter flight en route from Puerto Rico to Miami; and the January 1949 disappearance of Star Ariel, another BSAA passenger airplane.

Flight 19 was covered again in the April 1962 issue of The American Legion Magazine. In it, author Allan W. Eckert wrote that the flight leader had been heard saying, "We cannot be sure of any direction ... everything is wrong ... strange ... the ocean doesn't look as it should." In February 1964, Vincent Gaddis wrote an article called "The Deadly Bermuda Triangle" in Argosy saying Flight 19 and other disappearances were part of a pattern of strange events in the region, dating back to at least 1840. The next year, Gaddis expanded this article into a book, Invisible Horizons.

Other writers elaborated on Gaddis' ideas, including John Wallace Spencer (Limbo of the Lost, 1969, repr. 1973); Charles Berlitz (The Bermuda Triangle, 1974); and Richard Winer (The Devil's Triangle, 1974). Various of these authors incorporated supernatural elements.

Triangle area
Sand's article in Fate described the area as "a watery triangle bounded roughly by Florida, Bermuda and Puerto Rico". The Argosy article by Gaddis further delineated the boundaries, giving its vertices as Miami; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Bermuda. Subsequent writers did not necessarily follow this definition. Some writers gave different boundaries and vertices to the triangle, with the total area varying from 1.3 to 3.9 e6km2. "Indeed, some writers even stretch it as far as the Irish coast." Consequently, the determination of which accidents occurred inside the triangle depends on which writer reported them.

Larry Kusche
Larry Kusche, author of The Bermuda Triangle Mystery: Solved (1975), argued that many claims of Gaddis and subsequent writers were exaggerated, dubious or unverifiable. Kusche's research revealed a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies between Berlitz's accounts and statements from eyewitnesses, participants, and others involved in the initial incidents. Kusche noted cases where pertinent information went unreported, such as the disappearance of round-the-world yachtsman Donald Crowhurst, which Berlitz had presented as a mystery, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Another example was the ore-carrier recounted by Berlitz as lost without trace three days out of an Atlantic port when it had been lost three days out of a port with the same name in the Pacific Ocean. Kusche also argued that a large percentage of the incidents that sparked allegations of the Triangle's mysterious influence actually occurred well outside it. Often his research was simple: he would review period newspapers of the dates of reported incidents and find reports on possibly relevant events like unusual weather, that were never mentioned in the disappearance stories.

Kusche concluded that:
 * The number of ships and aircraft reported missing in the area was not significantly greater, proportionally speaking, than in any other part of the ocean.
 * In an area frequented by tropical cyclones, the number of disappearances that did occur were, for the most part, neither disproportionate, unlikely, nor mysterious.
 * Furthermore, Berlitz and other writers would often fail to mention such storms or even represent the disappearance as having happened in calm conditions when meteorological records clearly contradict this.
 * The numbers themselves had been exaggerated by sloppy research. A boat's disappearance, for example, would be reported, but its eventual (if belated) return to port may not have been.
 * Some disappearances had, in fact, never happened. One plane crash was said to have taken place in 1937, off Daytona Beach, Florida, in front of hundreds of witnesses.
 * The legend of the Bermuda Triangle is a manufactured mystery, perpetuated by writers who either purposely or unknowingly made use of misconceptions, faulty reasoning, and sensationalism.

Further responses
When the British Channel 4 television program The Bermuda Triangle (1992) was being produced by John Simmons of Geofilms for the Equinox series, the marine insurance market Lloyd's of London was asked if an unusually large number of ships had sunk in the Bermuda Triangle area. Lloyd's determined that large numbers of ships had not sunk there. Lloyd's does not charge higher rates for passing through this area. United States Coast Guard records confirm their conclusion. In fact, the number of supposed disappearances is relatively insignificant considering the number of ships and aircraft that pass through on a regular basis.

The Coast Guard is also officially skeptical of the Triangle, noting that they collect and publish, through their inquiries, much documentation contradicting many of the incidents written about by the Triangle authors. In one such incident involving the 1972 explosion and sinking of the tanker SS V. A. Fogg, the Coast Guard photographed the wreck and recovered several bodies, in contrast with one Triangle author's claim that all the bodies had vanished, with the exception of the captain, who was found sitting in his cabin at his desk, clutching a coffee cup. In addition, V. A. Fogg sank off the coast of Texas, nowhere near the commonly accepted boundaries of the Triangle.

The Nova/Horizon episode The Case of the Bermuda Triangle, aired on 27 June 1976, was highly critical, stating that "When we've gone back to the original sources or the people involved, the mystery evaporates. Science does not have to answer questions about the Triangle because those questions are not valid in the first place ... Ships and planes behave in the Triangle the same way they behave everywhere else in the world."

Skeptical researchers, such as Ernest Taves and Barry Singer, have noted how mysteries and the paranormal are very popular and profitable. This has led to the production of vast amounts of material on topics such as the Bermuda Triangle. They were able to show that some of the pro-paranormal material is often misleading or inaccurate, but its producers continue to market it. Accordingly, they have claimed that the market is biased in favor of books, TV specials, and other media that support the Triangle mystery, and against well-researched material if it espouses a skeptical viewpoint.

In a 2013 study, the World Wide Fund for Nature identified the world's 10 most dangerous waters for shipping, but the Bermuda Triangle was not among them.

Benjamin Radford, an author and scientific paranormal investigator, noted in an interview on the Bermuda Triangle that it could be very difficult locating an aircraft lost at sea due to the vast search area, and although the disappearance might be mysterious, that did not make it paranormal or unexplainable. Radford further noted the importance of double-checking information as the mystery surrounding the Bermuda Triangle had been created by people who had neglected to do so.

Hypothetical explanation attempts
Persons accepting the Bermuda Triangle as a real phenomenon have offered a number of explanatory approaches.

Paranormal explanations
Triangle writers have used a number of supernatural concepts to explain the events. One explanation pins the blame on leftover technology from the mythical lost continent of Atlantis. Sometimes connected to the Atlantis story is the submerged rock formation known as the Bimini Road off the island of Bimini in the Bahamas, which is in the Triangle by some definitions. Followers of the purported psychic Edgar Cayce take his prediction that evidence of Atlantis would be found in 1968, as referring to the discovery of the Bimini Road. Believers describe the formation as a road, wall, or other structure, but the Bimini Road is of natural origin.

Some hypothesize that a parallel universe exists in the Bermuda Triangle region, causing a time/space warp that sucks the objects around it into a parallel universe. Others attribute the events to UFOs. Charles Berlitz, author of various books on anomalous phenomena, lists several theories attributing the losses in the Triangle to anomalous or unexplained forces.

Compass variations
Compass problems are one of the cited phrases in many Triangle incidents. While some have theorized that unusual local magnetic anomalies may exist in the area, such anomalies have not been found. Compasses have natural magnetic variations in relation to the magnetic poles, a fact which navigators have known for centuries. Magnetic (compass) north and geographic (true) north are exactly the same only for a small number of places – for example,, in the United States, only those places on a line running from Wisconsin to the Gulf of Mexico. But the public may not be as informed, and think there is something mysterious about a compass "changing" across an area as large as the Triangle, which it naturally will.

Gulf Stream
The Gulf Stream (Florida Current) is a major surface current, primarily driven by thermohaline circulation that originates in the Gulf of Mexico and then flows through the Straits of Florida into the North Atlantic. In essence, it is a river within an ocean, and, like a river, it can and does carry floating objects. It has a maximum surface velocity of about 2 m/s. A small plane making a water landing or a boat having engine trouble can be carried away from its reported position by the current.

Human error
One of the most cited explanations in official inquiries as to the loss of any aircraft or vessel is human error. Human stubbornness may have caused businessman Harvey Conover to lose his sailing yacht, Revonoc, as he sailed into the teeth of a storm south of Florida on 1 January 1958.

Violent weather
Hurricanes are powerful storms which form in tropical waters and have historically cost thousands of lives and caused billions of dollars in damage. The sinking of Francisco de Bobadilla's Spanish fleet in 1502 was the first recorded instance of a destructive hurricane. These storms have in the past caused a number of incidents related to the Triangle. Many Atlantic hurricanes pass through the Triangle as they recurve off the Eastern Seaboard, and, before the advent of weather satellites, ships often had little to no warning of a hurricane's approach.

A powerful downdraft of cold air was suspected to be a cause in the sinking of Pride of Baltimore on 14 May 1986. The crew of the sunken vessel noted the wind suddenly shifted and increased velocity from 32 kph to 97 - 145 kph. A National Hurricane Center satellite specialist, James Lushine, stated "during very unstable weather conditions the downburst of cold air from aloft can hit the surface like a bomb, exploding outward like a giant squall line of wind and water."

Methane hydrates
An explanation for some of the disappearances has focused on the presence of large fields of methane hydrates (a form of natural gas) on the continental shelves. Laboratory experiments carried out in Australia have proven that bubbles can, indeed, sink a scale model ship by decreasing the density of the water, and any wreckage would be deposited on the ocean floor or rapidly dispersed by the Gulf Stream. It has been hypothesized that periodic methane eruptions (sometimes called "mud volcanoes") may produce regions of frothy water that are no longer capable of providing adequate buoyancy for ships. If this were the case, such an area forming around a ship could cause it to sink very rapidly and without warning.

Publications by the USGS describe large stores of undersea hydrates worldwide, including the Blake Ridge area, off the coast of the southeastern United States. However, according to the USGS, no large releases of gas hydrates are believed to have occurred in the Bermuda Triangle for the past 15,000 years.

HMS Atalanta
The sail training ship HMS Atalanta (originally named HMS Juno) disappeared with her entire crew after setting sail from the Royal Naval Dockyard, Bermuda for Falmouth, England on 31 January 1880. It was presumed that she sank in a powerful storm which crossed her route a couple of weeks after she sailed, and that her crew being composed primarily of inexperienced trainees may have been a contributing factor. The search for evidence of her fate attracted worldwide attention at the time (connection is also often made to the 1878 loss of the training ship HMS Eurydice, which foundered after departing the Royal Naval Dockyard in Bermuda for Portsmouth on 6 March), and she was alleged decades later to have been a victim of the mysterious triangle, an allegation resoundingly refuted by the research of author David Francis Raine in 1997.

USS Cyclops
The incident resulting in the single largest loss of life in the history of the US Navy not related to combat occurred when the collier Cyclops, carrying a full load of manganese ore and with one engine out of action, went missing without a trace with a crew of 306 sometime after 4 March 1918, after departing the island of Barbados. Although there is no strong evidence for any single theory, many independent theories exist, some blaming storms, some capsizing, and some suggesting that wartime enemy activity was to blame for the loss. In addition, two of Cyclops's sister ships, USS Proteus (AC-9) and USS Nereus (AC-10), were subsequently lost in the North Atlantic during World War II. Both ships were transporting heavy loads of metallic ore similar to that which was loaded on Cyclops during her fatal voyage. In all three cases structural failure due to overloading with a much denser cargo than designed is considered the most likely cause of sinking.

Carroll A. Deering

Carroll A. Deering, a five-masted schooner built in 1919, was found hard aground and abandoned at Diamond Shoals, near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, on 31 January 1921. FBI investigation into the Deering scrutinized, then ruled out, multiple theories as to why and how the ship was abandoned, including piracy, domestic Communist sabotage and the involvement of rum-runners.

Flight 19
Flight 19 was a training flight of five TBM Avenger torpedo bombers that disappeared on 5 December 1945, while over the Atlantic. The squadron's flight plan was scheduled to take them due east from Fort Lauderdale for 141 mi, north for 73 mi, and then back over a final 140 mi leg to complete the exercise. The flight never returned to base. The disappearance was attributed by Navy investigators to navigational error leading to the aircraft running out of fuel.

One of the search and rescue aircraft deployed to look for them, a PBM Mariner with a 13-man crew, also disappeared. A tanker off the coast of Florida reported seeing an explosion and observing a widespread oil slick when fruitlessly searching for survivors. The weather was becoming stormy by the end of the incident. According to contemporaneous sources, the Mariner had a history of explosions due to vapor leaks when heavily loaded with fuel, as it might have been for a potentially long search-and-rescue operation.

Star Tiger and Star Ariel
G-AHNP Star Tiger disappeared on 30 January 1948, on a flight from the Azores to Bermuda; G-AGRE Star Ariel disappeared on 17 January 1949, on a flight from Bermuda to Kingston, Jamaica. Both were Avro Tudor IV passenger aircraft operated by British South American Airways. Both planes were operating at the very limits of their range and the slightest error or fault in the equipment could keep them from reaching the small island.

Douglas DC-3
On 28 December 1948, a Douglas DC-3 aircraft, number NC16002, disappeared while on a flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Miami. No trace of the aircraft, or the 32 people on board, was ever found. A Civil Aeronautics Board investigation found there was insufficient information available on which to determine probable cause of the disappearance.

Connemara IV
A pleasure yacht was found adrift in the Atlantic south of Bermuda on 26 September 1955; it is usually stated in the stories (Berlitz, Winer) that the crew vanished while the yacht survived being at sea during three hurricanes. The 1955 Atlantic hurricane season shows Hurricane Ione passing nearby between 14 and 18 September, with Bermuda being affected by winds of almost gale force. In his second book on the Bermuda Triangle, Winer quoted from a letter he had received from Mr J.E. Challenor of Barbados:

"On the morning of September 22, Connemara IV was lying to a heavy mooring in the open roadstead of Carlisle Bay. Because of the approaching hurricane, the owner strengthened the mooring ropes and put out two additional anchors. There was little else he could do, as the exposed mooring was the only available anchorage. ... In Carlisle Bay, the sea in the wake of Hurricane Janet was awe-inspiring and dangerous. The owner of Connemara IV observed that she had disappeared. An investigation revealed that she had dragged her moorings and gone to sea."

KC-135 Stratotankers
On 28 August 1963, a pair of US Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft collided and crashed into the Atlantic 300 mi west of Bermuda. Some writers say that while the two aircraft did collide, there were two distinct crash sites, separated by over 160 mi of water. However, Kusche's research showed that the unclassified version of the Air Force investigation report revealed that the debris field defining the second "crash site" was examined by a search and rescue ship, and found to be a mass of seaweed and driftwood tangled in an old buoy.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bermuda Triangle


text:
Borough

A borough is an administrative division in various English-speaking countries. In principle, the term borough designates a self-governing walled town, although in practice, official use of the term varies widely.

History
In the Middle Ages, boroughs were settlements in England that were granted some self-government; burghs were the Scottish equivalent. In medieval England, boroughs were also entitled to elect members of parliament. The use of the word borough probably derives from the burghal system of Alfred the Great. Alfred set up a system of defensive strong points (Burhs); in order to maintain these particular settlements, he granted them a degree of autonomy. After the Norman Conquest, when certain towns were granted self-governance, the concept of the burh/borough seems to have been reused to mean a self-governing settlement.

The concept of the borough has been used repeatedly (and often differently) throughout the world. Often, a borough is a single town with its own local government. However, in some cities it is a subdivision of the city (for example, New York City, London, and Montreal). In such cases, the borough will normally have either limited powers delegated to it by the city's local government, or no powers at all. In other places, such as the U.S. state of Alaska, borough designates a whole region; Alaska's largest borough, the North Slope Borough, is comparable in area to the entire United Kingdom, although its population is less than that of Swanage on England's south coast with around 9,600 inhabitants. In Australia, a borough was once a self-governing small town, but this designation has all but vanished, except for the only remaining borough in the country, which is the Borough of Queenscliffe.

Boroughs as administrative units are to be found in Ireland and the United Kingdom, more specifically in England and Northern Ireland. Boroughs also exist in the Canadian province of Quebec and formerly in Ontario, in some states of the United States, in Israel, formerly in New Zealand and only one left in Australia.

Etymology
The word borough derives from the Old English word burg, burh, meaning a fortified settlement; the word appears as modern English bury, -brough, Scots burgh, borg in Scandinavian languages, Burg in German.

A number of other European languages have cognate words that were borrowed from the Germanic languages during the Middle Ages, including brog in Irish, bwr or bwrc, meaning "wall, rampart" in Welsh, bourg in French, burg in Catalan (in Catalonia there is a town named Burg), borgo in Italian, burgo in Portuguese, Galician and Castilian (hence the castilian place-name Burgos, galician place-names O Burgo and Malburgo), the -bork of Lębork and Malbork in Polish and the -bor of Maribor in Slovenian.

The 'burg' element, which means "castle" or "fortress", is often confused with 'berg' meaning "hill" or "mountain" (c.f. iceberg, inselberg). Hence the 'berg' element in Bergen or Heidelberg relates to a hill, rather than a fort. In some cases, the 'berg' element in place names has converged towards burg/borough; for instance Farnborough, from fernaberga (fern-hill).

Australia
In Australia, the term "borough" is an occasionally used term for a local government area. Currently there is only one borough in Australia, the Borough of Queenscliffe in Victoria, although there have been more in the past. However, in some cases it can be integrated into the council's name instead of used as an official title, such as the Kingborough Council in Tasmania.

Canada
In Quebec, the term borough is generally used as the English translation of arrondissement, referring to an administrative division of a municipality, or a district. Eight municipalities are divided into boroughs: See List of boroughs in Quebec.

In Ontario, it was previously used to denote suburban municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, including Scarborough, York, North York and Etobicoke prior to their conversions to cities. The Borough of East York was the last Toronto municipality to hold this status, relinquishing it upon becoming part of the City of Toronto government on January 1, 1998.

Colombia
The Colombian municipalities are subdivided into boroughs (English translation of the Spanish term localidades) with a local executive and an administrative board for local government. These boroughs are divided into neighborhoods.

The principal cities had localidades with the same features as the European or American cities. Those included Soacha in Bogotá, Bello, La Estrella, Sabaneta, Envigado and Itagüí on Medellín.

Ireland
There are four borough districts designated by the Local Government Reform Act 2014: Clonmel, Drogheda, Sligo, and Wexford. A local boundary review reporting in 2018 proposed granting borough status to any district containing a census town with a population over 30,000; this would have included the towns of Dundalk, Bray, and Navan. This would have required an amendment to the 2014 Act, promised for 2019 by minister John Paul Phelan.

Historically, there were 117 parliamentary boroughs in the Irish House of Commons, of which 80 were disfranchised by the Acts of Union 1800. All but 11 municipal boroughs were abolished under the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840. Under the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, six of these became county boroughs: Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Derry, Limerick and Waterford. From 1921, Belfast and Derry were part of Northern Ireland and stayed within the United Kingdom on the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922.

Galway was a borough from 1937 until upgraded to a county borough in 1985. The county boroughs in the Republic of Ireland were redesignated as "cities" under the Local Government Act 2001.

Dún Laoghaire was a borough from 1930 until merged into Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown county in 1994.

There were five borough councils in place at the time of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 which abolished all second-tier local government units of borough and town councils. Each local government authority outside of Dublin, Cork City and Galway City was divided into areas termed municipal districts. In four of the areas which had previously been contained borough councils, as listed above, these were instead termed Borough Districts. Kilkenny had previously had a borough council, but its district was to be called the Municipal District of Kilkenny City, in recognition of its historic city status.

Israel
Under Israeli law, inherited from British Mandate municipal law, the possibility of creating a municipal borough exists. However, no borough was actually created under law until 2005–2006, when Neve Monosson and Maccabim-Re'ut, both communal settlements (Heb: yishuv kehilati) founded in 1953 and 1984, respectively, were declared to be autonomous municipal boroughs (Heb: vaad rova ironi), within their mergers with the towns of Yehud and Modi'in. Similar structures have been created under different types of legal status over the years in Israel, notably Kiryat Haim in Haifa, Jaffa in Tel Aviv-Yafo and Ramot and Gilo in Jerusalem. However, Neve Monosson is the first example of a full municipal borough actually declared under law by the Minister of the Interior, under a model subsequently adopted in Maccabim-Re'ut as well.

It is the declared intention of the Interior Ministry to use the borough mechanism in order to facilitate municipal mergers in Israel, after a 2003 wide-reaching merger plan, which, in general, ignored the sensitivities of the communal settlements, and largely failed.

Mexico
In Mexico as translations from English to Spanish applied to Mexico City, the word borough has resulted in a delegación (delegation), referring to the 16 administrative areas within the Mexico City, now called Alcaldías.

Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the municipalities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam were divided into administrative boroughs, or deelgemeenten, which had their own borough council and a borough mayor. Other large cities are usually divided into districts, or stadsdelen, for census purposes. The deelgemeenten were abolished in 2014.

New Zealand
New Zealand formerly used the term borough to designate self-governing towns of more than 1,000 people, although 19th century census records show many boroughs with populations as low as 200. A borough of more than 20,000 people could become a city by proclamation. Boroughs and cities were collectively known as municipalities, and were enclaves separate from their surrounding counties. Boroughs proliferated in the suburban areas of the larger cities: By the 1980s there were 19 boroughs and three cities in the area that is now the City of Auckland.

In the 1980s, some boroughs and cities began to be merged with their surrounding counties to form districts with a mixed urban and rural population. A nationwide reform of local government in 1989 completed the process. Counties and boroughs were abolished and all boundaries were redrawn. Under the new system, most territorial authorities cover both urban and rural land. The more populated councils are classified as cities, and the more rural councils are classified as districts. Only Kawerau District, an enclave within Whakatāne District, continues to follow the tradition of a small town council that does not include surrounding rural area.

Trinidad and Tobago
In Trinidad and Tobago, a Borough is a unit of Local Government. There are 5 boroughs in The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago:
 * Chaguanas
 * Arima
 * Point Fortin
 * Diego Martin
 * Siparia

Ancient and municipal boroughs
During the medieval period many towns were granted self-governance by the Crown, at which point they became referred to as boroughs. The formal status of borough came to be conferred by Royal Charter. These boroughs were generally governed by a self-selecting corporation (i.e., when a member died or resigned his replacement would be by co-option). Sometimes boroughs were governed by bailiffs.

Debates on the Reform Bill (eventually the Reform Act 1832) lamented the diversity of polity of such town corporations, and a Royal Commission was set up to investigate this. This resulted in a regularisation of municipal government by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835. 178 of the ancient boroughs were re-formed as municipal boroughs, with all municipal corporations to be elected according to a standard franchise based on property ownership. The unreformed boroughs lapsed in borough status, or were reformed (or abolished) later. Several new municipal boroughs were formed in the new industrial cities after the bill enacted, per its provisions.

As part of a large-scale reform of local government in England and Wales in 1974, municipal boroughs were finally abolished (having become increasingly irrelevant). However, the civic traditions of many were continued by the grant of a charter to their successor district councils. As to smallest boroughs, a town council was formed for an alike zone, while charter trustees were formed for a few others. A successor body is allowed to use the regalia of the old corporation, and appoint ceremonial office holders such as sword and mace bearers as provided in their original charters. The council, or trustees, may apply for an Order in Council or Royal Licence to use the coat of arms.

Parliamentary boroughs
From 1265, two burgesses from each borough were summoned to the Parliament of England, alongside two knights from each county. Thus parliamentary constituencies were derived from the ancient boroughs. Representation in the House of Commons was decided by the House itself, which resulted in boroughs being established in some small settlements for the purposes of parliamentary representation, despite their possessing no actual corporation.

After the 1832 Reform Act, which disenfranchised many of the rotten boroughs (boroughs that had declined in importance, had only a small population, and had only a handful of eligible voters), parliamentary constituencies began to diverge from the ancient boroughs. While many ancient boroughs remained as municipal boroughs, they were disenfranchised by the Reform Act.

County boroughs
The Local Government Act 1888 established a new sort of borough – the county borough. These were designed to be 'counties-to-themselves'; administrative divisions to sit alongside the new administrative counties. They allowed urban areas to be administered separately from the more rural areas. They, therefore, often contained pre-existing municipal boroughs, which thereafter became part of the second tier of local government, below the administrative counties and county boroughs.

The county boroughs were, like the municipal boroughs, abolished in 1974, being reabsorbed into their parent counties for administrative purposes.

Metropolitan boroughs
In 1899, as part of a reform of local government in the County of London, the various parishes in London were reorganised as new entities, the 'metropolitan boroughs'. These were reorganised further when Greater London was formed out of Middlesex, parts of Surrey, Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire and the County of London in 1965. These council areas are now referred to as "London boroughs" rather than "metropolitan boroughs".

When the new metropolitan counties (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire) were created in 1974, their sub-divisions also became metropolitan boroughs in many, but not all, cases; in many cases these metropolitan boroughs recapitulated abolished county boroughs (for example, Stockport). The metropolitan boroughs possessed slightly more autonomy from the metropolitan county councils than the shire county districts did from their county councils.

With the abolition of the metropolitan county councils in 1986, these metropolitan boroughs became independent, and continue to be so at present.

Other current uses
Elsewhere in England a number of districts and unitary authority areas are called "borough". Until 1974, this was a status that denoted towns with a certain type of local government (a municipal corporation, or a self-governing body). Since 1974, it has been a purely ceremonial style granted by royal charter to districts which may consist of a single town or may include a number of towns or rural areas. Borough status entitles the council chairman to bear the title of mayor. Districts may apply to the British Crown for the grant of borough status upon advice of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, local government was reorganised in 1973. Under the legislation that created the 26 districts of Northern Ireland, a district council whose area included an existing municipal borough could resolve to adopt the charter of the old municipality and thus continue to enjoy borough status. Districts that do not contain a former borough can apply for a charter in a similar manner to English districts.

United States
In the United States, a borough is a unit of local government or other administrative division below the level of the state. The term is currently used in seven states.

The following states use, or have used, the word with the following meanings:
 * Alaska, as a county-equivalent — List of boroughs and census areas in Alaska
 * Connecticut, as an incorporated municipality within, or consolidated with, a town — see Borough (Connecticut)
 * Michigan, formerly applied to a village in the midst of forming a city. Also in Michigan is Mackinac Island, which was a borough from 1817 to 1847, when it became a village; it has been a city since 1899.
 * New Jersey, as a type of independent incorporated municipality — see Borough (New Jersey)
 * New York, as one of the five divisions of New York City, each coextensive with a county — see Boroughs of New York City
 * Pennsylvania, as a type of municipality comparable to a town — see Borough (Pennsylvania) — though two of the state's largest cities, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, have retained their names despite clearly being cities, as well as smaller communities that are officially cities in the Commonwealth such as Gettysburg
 * Virginia, as a division of a city under certain circumstances — see
 * Wisconsin in the 19th century occasionally used the term "borough" for the type of civil township normally known as a town.

title: Borough


text:
Talk:Borough

Definition
I think the present definition is too narrow; see e.g. http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=498536&secid=.-&hh=1 --css.

Question (both to the definition and to the appropriate use in city discussions): should we cross-link with non-English "boroughs"? For example, in my quest to understand local government where I currently live (Prague, Czechia), I ended up down a research rabbit hole that prompted me to create the page Boroughs in the Czech Republic. Now, they do not use anything etymologically related to the word "borough", but I don't have a better English word for the idea. I'm inclined to put a little sub-section and summary on this page, but thought I'd check with all of you, first. --Philolegein (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

NJ and PA
The term "borough" refers to municipalities. Not all municipalities are called boroughs (as there are cities, towns, townships, villages), but for governmental purposes a borough in NJ and PA is no different than any other incorporated municipality. In CT it's a different story, as a borough is just a section of a larger township.
 * Actually, Pennsylvania does not have villages. It has cities, townships, and boroughs. --Riley 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Paoli, PA is a village

 * Paoli, Pennsylvania is not an incorporated municipality. older ≠ wiser 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some villages in Pennsylvania are signed as such, but there is no division of government in Pennsylvania known as a village. There is a division of government in Pennsylvania known as town, but the state has only one town, Bloomsburg in Columbia County. Besides Bloomsburg, incorporated communities in Pennsylvania are either cities or boroughs. --Damonbeau 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In New Jersey, a "borough" is a municipality with a particular form of municipal government. --71.247.77.207 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, not all boroughs in New Jersey follow that formula, and there are municipalities that do follow the formula that are not called boroughs.

Bur Dubai
I've often thought that Bur Dubai is a burgh of the UAE Emirate of Dubai. This would make a lot of sense based on the Scottish/English definition.

Borough or district?
I'm doing some research on local government infrastructure in the UK, but cannot find a definitive answer: what is the difference between a District council and a Borough council?

If I read this article correctly, each borough council in the country has the right to elect a mayor but DC's do not?

 * There is no practical difference in terms of administration; non-Metropolitan Local Authorities, whether called Boroughs or Districts (or Cities) have the same functions and terms of reference (excepting those which are Unitary or Metropolitan which are single-tier). However, the authorities called "Boroughs" are generally urban, or at least based on a town or city of some size, and geographically somewhat smaller; whereas "Districts" are generally rural or comprise of a number of smallish towns spread over a larger geographic area. Other than that, the differences are just ceremonial or historical, for example whether they have a Royal or City Charter. Districts_of_England gives a clearer overview. DWaterson 01:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation file

 * the file does not work. Current link is Shawnc 00:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Pennsylvania boroughs
In Pennsylvania at least, a borough is a community without a large enough population to be classified as a city; most cities in PA started out as boroughs. I don't know if this is true in other states, so the statement "In some states of the U.S., such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, a self-governing city or town is called a borough." may have been misleading, because it implies that all cities are boroughs. I replaced this wording in the article but I only really know about Pennsylvania, so my replacement may need fixing. ScottAlanHill 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * i live in pa, and a borough is a town, not a city. i don't know what it is officially, but that's what we call it here. --Colorfulharp233 10:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Boro?
Is this where the term "-boro" used in North Carolina comes from? For example: Greensboro, Goldsboro, Waynesboro, Asheboro, Carrboro, Tarboro, Roxboro, Bayboro, Bladenboro, Dillsboro, Ellenboro, Mooresboro... should i go on? :-)

 * I think so. A couple quotes from George R. Stewart's book Names on the Land, about placenames in the United States after the Revolution:  "Any -ton along the eastern seaboard may formerly have been a -town, just as any -burg or -boro was probably once a -burgh or -borough.  This last suffix declined.  Unlike -burgh, it was thought to be too British.  After the Revolution it was less commonly used, and some -boroughs actually changed their names."  And, describing the Board on Geographic Names 1891 report on standardization recommendations for placename changes: "Names should avoid the possessive forms, diacritic characters, and hyphens.  They should drop City and -town, the -h of -burgh, the -ugh of -borough, ..."  For a few decades, many names were changed in these ways, until the fight over the final -h of Pittsburgh took the wind out of the Board's sails. Pfly 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike -burgh, it was thought to be too British" - the aforesaid does not make sense. Sounds like a load of bollocks. -boro is an living wordbit in British placenames but moreso smaller places and fieldnames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.249.160 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be said in the listing about "-boro" it is a commonly used part of many communities names. I assume it is a contraction of -borough, and it needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phazer123 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitions
I found this at http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0405800.html

 * 1)  A self-governing incorporated town in some U.S. states, such as New Jersey.

 * 1) One of the five administrative units of New York City.

 * 1) A civil division of the state of Alaska that is the equivalent of a county in most other U.S. states.

 * 1) Chiefly British a. A town having a municipal corporation and certain rights, such as self-government. b. A town that sends a representative to Parliament.

 * 1) A medieval group of fortified houses that formed a town having special privileges and rights.

-- e. 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The British definition is somewhat archaic. Possibly better - a district, administered by an elected council, with a largely urban character and having had Borough status granted. Historically, a town with certain privileges granted by Royal Charter or later by Act of Parliament, or that sent a representative to parliament.

86.143.9.21 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the US section
I am about to tag the US section for accuracy because I believe that several statements are dubious and that the entire section could use a good fact-checking. For example: Doctor Whom 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In most American uses of the term, a village is an incorporated, partially autonomous municipality which is subject to the supervisory authority of the township and county in which it is located. I know that this is true of some states, but I doubt that it's accurate to say that most American uses of the term follow that definition, since villages can also be special taxation districts rather than incorporated municipalities and can exist in states with no townships.
 * Cities are invariably exempt from such supervisory authority in the United States. So cities in the U.S. are invariably independent cities?  Sorry, but no.
 * whereas most states use a three-tiered system of decentralization - state/county/township While it's true that some states are organized in that fashion, many aren't.

 * You're spot on with your observations. It is difficult to make meaningful generalizations about local government in the U.S. as a whole without also including extensive qualifying statements. older ≠ wiser 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "village" is not used in Iowa, and frankly sounds quaint. A couple of suburbs of Chicago are styled "villages"; I believe that indicates something about the form of municipal government used, but I'm not sure of that. The usage purveyed as "most" in the article is the use in New York, which I explain to out-of-staters as meaning what "town" or "city" means most places; the term "town", I explain, refers to what is essentially a sub-county. Perhaps these uses aren't unique to New York; I had thought of the system as an entirely New York idiosyncracy. 71.247.77.207 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Sub-county as in Civil township? The Holland Land Company page has a nice map showing the counties and townships (called "towns") of Western New York.  I grew up in the Village of Williamsville, in the Town of Amherst, Erie County, New York, and always thought it weird that one could live in a village AND a town.  In Maine, the system is more confusing..  the whole state is divided into what look like the equivalent of townships, but some are called townships, some "plantations", some just "towns", and quite a few other names.  They are properly called "minor civil divisions", I think.  In Washington State there are no towns that I know of.  Even though the land was surveyed under the Public Land Survey System into townships, local government within a county is either a "city" or "unincorporated county".  The wide variety of local government systems, terms, and ways of dividing up land in the United States could be an article of its own... and maybe should be!  Maybe it already is? Pfly 05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In New Jersey, villages and boroughs are types of (incorporated) municipalities, just like any other. Septentrionalis 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also borough's in the Canadian province of Ontario (ex Scarborough, Peterborough). I have now added this Canking 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Canking, they are not boroughs. Although they have the word 'borough' in their names, they are not administrative boroughs, and borough is not part of their municipal title.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation
I think this needs to be developed further. In Scotland, the UK and Canada for example, it's pronounced differently than in the US. I know this was mentioned briefly but I think it needs expanding. Is it only these there countries that pronounce the ending like "bra" Canking 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bury is not derived from Borough
Identifying the place-name element 'Bury' as being derived from Borough is inaccurate. 'Bury' is from Old English 'Burh', meaning a fortified place, a stronghold. It's been around as an English place-name element a lot longer than Borough has. Chronologically, Borough could've derived from Burh, but not vice-versa

Italian "borgo"
In Italy the word borgo (cognate to English borough) can also refer to simple city neighborhoods (especially historical neighborhoods), not necessarily self-governing. In this particular case, the meaning is very close to the word quartiere or rione, at least in everyday Italian language, and is also known as borgata.

In turn, when it comes to self-governing and administrative units within the city boundaries, we'd rather call that circoscrizione - I think it is roughly similar to the concept of district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.213.239 (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Pori?
The Finnish word pori doesn't fit in the sentence, as the writer wanted to give example of Germanic words. In stead of English, Dutch, German and most Scandinavian tongues, Finnish is a Fin-Ugrian language, no Germanic (even no Indo-European). Sorry for my English. (: --84.26.31.157 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Added burgh (and brough) re England in the foreword and under etymology
There was no mention of the existance of -burgh (and another derivation: -brough examples: Middlesbrough, Knaresbrough) in relation to England. Placenames ending in -burgh are somewhat more common and also older in England than Scotland, so righted this. Furthermore, added examples of English placenames which bear -burgh endings, the English and Dutch cognates: Tilbury, and Tilburg, and the Elsass German spelling: Strossburi to show the relationship between bury and buri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4B6E:5095:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Any possible relation with Thracian 'bria'?
Do you know whether the Germanic 'burg', 'borough', etc have any relation with the Thracian "bria" like in Mesembria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.239.160 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borough. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1937/en/act/prv/0003
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723000338/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1930/en/act/pub/0027/ to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1930/en/act/pub/0027
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811065338/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0031/ to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0031/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Borough. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426081723/http://www.whatrhymeswith.com/words-ending-with/boro to http://www.whatrhymeswith.com/words-ending-with/boro

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Duplication
There is a staggering degree of overlap/ duplication between the sections on History and Etymology. I will try to find time to streamline the two sections. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Borough