Talk:Younger's Brewery

(Historical) Request for further review for acceptance

Regarding notability of subject: There are not many private companies that have survived successfully over two and a half centuries to become a market leader and, in the UK at least, a household name until about twenty years ago. Brewing was one of Edinburgh's main industries in the past, if not the main one, and by the 1960s/70s Scottish & Newcastle Breweries Ltd., of which Younger's was a part, employed the biggest single workforce in the city.

Regarding verifiability of sources. This article cannot rely on impartial secondary sources as most of our knowledge about this company comes inevitably from the company's own published histories. I don't see a problem with that. One of them was written by a well-respected academic of Edinburgh University who authored the Third Statistical Account of Scotland in the 1960s and whom I would therefore regard as reliable.

The question for Wikipedia is, should there be a page on Younger's (as a companion to the McEwan's page about a historically less notable brewery), or should there not? This is a brewery many people are likely to search for. It seems a shame that there is a knowledge gap about it on Wikipedia at present, which is what I was hoping to rectify. - User:Kim_Traynor, this appeal moved to Talk page from the article main page upon article creation by David_FLXD (Talk)

It is with some trepidation that I differ with a senior editor on the acceptability of this article.

However, beer is itself notable by reason of it's wide popularity, and beer drinkers are often interested in the history of their elixir of life. This is, I would say, most probably why the McEwan's article exists. It is often the case with historical material that there are few good sources; to counter this, those that can be found are usually reliable. I was able myself to verify Keir, and am satisfied that this is a good primary source. I believe that there is little chance that any of the content of this article will be found to be seriously in error. Wikipedia has set standards and rules, but Wikipedia also recognises that there are exceptions to almost all of the rules. After due consideration, I came to the conclusion that the art in this article should, this time, outweigh the science of sources. Being Wikipedia, of course, the matter may be re-opened by anyone who feels strongly enough about it.

I do ask that the author, and anyone else who is able, continue to work on improving the sources and references. David_FLXD (Talk) 14:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the most active members of the Beer Wikiproject (and am responsible for the McEwan's page. IN my creation of the McEwan's page I kept coming across reference to Younger's (inevitable given their shared history) and I would have eventually created this page if someone else hadn't done so. Younger's is definitely a noteworthy subject. Farrtj (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Re additions to Younger's page

Hi. I kick-started the article on Younger's and am delighted to see your input, coming so soon after it went 'live'. I am however slightly uncomfortable with the infobox giving Archibald Younger as the firm's founder. I'm not disputing the fact that that may be the case, but it makes William Younger rather redundant and sets up an anomaly because the page still describes him thus, "In 1749 the firm’s founder, William Younger, left home for Edinburgh, aged 16...". I've looked at Martyn Cornell's article, which is very persuasive, only it directly contradicts two histories published by the firm. Now, it may be that these histories got the facts wrong and that Martyn Cornell got them right, but I don't know how to judge one assertion against the other. If Cornell is right, it questions the received wisdom and means there's no justification for having William Younger on the page (beyond his role as progenitor of the dynasty). I see also that he's saying Younger's and McEwans are no longer Heineken brands, so that too contradicts the page as it stands. Do you have any thoughts about how we should resolve the discrepancies that have now arisen? I should let you know that the article was rejected at first for a) not being a sufficiently notable subject for an encyclopaedia, and b) not being verifiable by secondary sources. It was accepted because another administrator intervened and made the case that it was notable; and he agreed with my appeal that, since most of the information could come only from the firm's own archive, it was unlikely the content would be challenged. That now seems embarrassingly not the case. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I've had another look at The Younger Centuries by David Keir, published in 1951. Keir was a university academic who authored the Edinburgh volume of the Third Statistical Account of Scotland, published in the 1960s. While I know little about him, I've no reason (yet) to doubt his integrity. It's too late tonight, but tomorrow I could quote you some passages from his book which give the reader the distinct impression that William Younger was a brewer and that his wife took over the running of the brewery during his time as an exciseman. While all history is in part an imaginative reconstruction in which the author fills in the gaps between the primary sources, many of his statements could really only be made if he had evidence to support them. If he didn't, then he is guilty of pure invention, which is always possible but seems a little unlikely, given that, as an academic, he must have had some scruples. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

well you believe the corporate shill if you wish. I had thought better than you than that, but meh, you live, you learn Farrtj (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand that response. I'm not even sure if it's civil. I note from your edits in creating the infobox that you had Wm Younger's name initially in place, so you began by accepting the received version. The company may have exaggerated in claiming Wm Younger as its founder (and one can understand why it would do that to enhance its pedigree), but the available sources name him as the founder and state the company claim that it was established in 1749. While it can be argued that Archibald was the real founder (because of the continuity provided by the Abbey Brewery), he can't just be promoted to that position in the Wikipedia article, because that is mere speculation and contradicts the accepted historical record. I think its OK to express doubts about the company's claim in the main text, but it can't just be disregarded and replaced with a new interpretation in the absence of concrete evidence. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Several years late for this debate, but as I'm directly quoted in it (for I am Martyn Cornell) I thought I needed to say a few words: The Younger Centuries by David Keir was published by Youngers itself. so David Keir was never going to say in that book that the foundation of the company in 1749 by William Younger I was a myth, because Youngers had been repeating that claim since the middle of the 19th century, and to say so would make the people paying him look stupid. So if you read the book, he says that William I founded the business, but carefully avoids saying when and where he was supposed to have been brewing - because there isn't any surviving evidence to say he was. This may be the "lie by omission" but it wasn't actually invention per se ... Zythophile (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)