Talk:Beer style/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early comments

Interesting page, but it is missing a list of styles and links. There is Rauchbier listed but no rauchbier link, but all of the miriad of ales that have lenghty pages are not mentioned, also none of the lagers other than Pilsner is mentioned.

Some styles that should have links even if they are not described: Ale: Porter, Stout, Imperial Stout, Pale Ale, India Pale Ale, Weissbier/Hefe Weizen (Wheat or white beer), Old Ale/Barleywine, Dubbel, Tripel, Quadrupel, Saison, Lambic, Gueuze, English Bitters, Extra Stong Bitters (ESB), Brown Ale, Kölsch, Scotch Ale, Scottish Ale,

Lager: Bock (Maibock), Doppelbock (Eisbock), Malt Liquor, Dortmunder, Dunkel Lager, Märzen/Oktoberfest,

Please feel free to add to this list, or work these links in to the article. - 12.20.127.229 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK what about Mild? IIRC there is a CAMRA-style group attempting to revive the appreciation and availability of Mild beers --John Stumbles 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a "beer style" category? --Michael K. Smith 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is: [1] — goethean ॐ 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work

I just wanted to let you know that. – ClockworkSoul 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Pilsner

If someone finds the time, make sure to add this.

Notability criteria discusion document

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. If we want to list every brewery on the planet then I feel we should get some valid criteria behind us. SilkTork 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheat Beer

While this is an important style, it should be part of the list of styles as described above. This section as written was atrocious, simply a few sentence fragments, so I deleted it pending the aforementioned style list. An added note, that list probably should be textual with a short description of each, but not replace the individual style articles. A pure list would be redundant with the styles category. Couch 10:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems

I found this article to be frankly rather disappointing and in need of improvement. First, the section "Determining a beer's style" in its present form shows somewhat of an anti-American bias and as such is not NPOV. Second, I think any decent article on beer style should give some breakdown of the components of beer style, which would include not only type of yeast, but color, hop bitterness and aroma, gravity and attenuation, and additional ingredients; in fact I would consider this to be the real heart of the article, which might otherwise end up being little more than a list of beer styles. --Mwalimu59 21:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Style Authorities

Fred Eckhardt: who is this fool? Does he really deserve to be compared to Michael Jackson? What?!! Is he some dumbass who wrote a wanna-be book on beer who slid his name into the wiki-world, as a covert promotion, thinking nobody would notice. Has he ever been to Europe, or elsewhere? What qualifies him to be a beer expert?

There have been several modifications to the discussion of style authorities in the "determining a beer's style" section recently. I think including what authorities there are on this subject is important. A couple of notes:

• the words "for homebrewers" was recently added to some of this. I think that's not a very good idea because the general reader may not realize that homebrewed beer is every bit as much beer as commercial beer. If you don't know about the process, you might think that there's someway in which homebrewed beer isn't really beer, which is just false.
• The BJCP guideline and the BA guidelines are both used in the US quit a bit. Both should be mentioned. Should it be mentioned that for the most part, these guidelines reveal consensus about what styles there are?
• Are there really no recognized bodies that classify beers in Europe? (I guess that wouldn't be surprising to me, but I have to ask.)

philosofool 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there might be differences of opinion on some issues, but wouldn't it make more sense to discuss these first before modifying an article to match your opinion?

Your point regarding home-brewed vs. commercial beer seems to me absolutely invalid. How many people will experience a given home-brewed beer vs. a commerical one? Furthermore, home brewing, as I understand it, can and should be a creative process. Some of the most interesting beers to have come out of Belgium recently, for example, come from home brewers gone commercial who have no style book and have no interest in trying to duplicate a given style, even if they had a guide!

You say the BJCP and BA (who are they?) guidelines are "used in the US quite a bit". You however leave out by whom. I assume by home brewers. Isn't that who these style guides are for? And aren't these guidelines used primarily to judge home brews in competition?

The description of how styles come into being is already covered quite well in the current article. Furthermore it is covered universally, not just for American beers, but beers made anywhere.

And to answer your final question, no, there are no recognised groups in Europe (that I am aware of) that classify beers. Beers here have been brewed for hundreds of years and techniques are passed down from generation to generation. Mikebe 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A few observations based on my own experience as a beer judge (which was admittedly has been a few years). First, it is not the job of a beer judge, BJCP or otherwise, to determine a beer's style, even though experienced judges may become quite good at it. Rather, a beer judge is given a style profile and has to judge how well particular beers are representative of the style; the contestant, not the judge, decides what style a beer should be entered as.

There is a committee on the BJCP that decides style guidelines to be used in AoB/AHA sanctioned competitions, and they are primarily use in the USA and Canada. Aside from the use in those competitions, I don't know how much they are recognized as any sort of highest authority. They try to be faithful to the traditions and origins of a beer style and its country of origin, but there is probably some degree of bias toward how the styles have been done in the American craft brewing industry.

See [http:// www.bjcp.org/index.php], especially [http:// www.bjcp.org/styles04/], for additional information.

One more observation - Fifteen years ago, I was disappointed at how much the craft brewing industry was mostly sticking to the traditional beer styles. More recently, from what I've seen at beer fests and at the liquor stores, I've been much more impressed that some brewers have been "breaking the barriers" and inventing/experimenting with beer styles that aren't bound to traditions. --Mwalimu59 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting post. I quite agree with you that brewers ignoring style guidelines tend to be the ones making the most interesting and rewarding beers. IAC, as I said, I don't believe that the guidelines for home brewing or professional competitions have a place in the general beer articles in Wikipedia. In fact, for the people new to beer or new to beer information, these guidelines can be confusing and give entirely the wrong message.

I hope this discussion clarifies the issue and explains why the BJCP does not belong on this page. Mikebe 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Elements of beer style

Just did a major addition to the article discussing elements of beer style, replacing the section that had been titled "Determining a beer's style" (and incorporating some of the material that had been in that section). I'm sure some of the subsections can be improved, and some of the added material might be redundant with other sections of the article, so by all means please have at it. --Mwalimu59 03:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Box?

I think it would be neat and real helpful if someone perhaps added a box at the bottom of the page with all the different styles. We could also put the same box on all the individual pages of beer styles. It would enhance navigation and facilitate learning about different beer styles you may not be familiar with. I would be happy to do it myself but I'm totally swamped at work at the moment so it might take me awhile, let me know what everyone thinks. Also if this does happen is there a way do put the box on all the style pages at once? It might be time consuming to do it one by one. --BrokenStoic 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Beer style chart

With all due respect to its creator, I've removed the beer style chart because I feel that, as it stands, it's not accurate enough for inclusion. Specifically:

• Lambics are, by at least some sources, considered ales as the majority of fermentation happens on the top of the beer.
• "Belgian ale" isn't really a distinct style in and of itself, covering as it does such a wide range of styles -- the disposition of Saison is also a little odd.
• "Dark ale" is a bit dubious considering the continuum in practice between stouts, porters, and dark milds. Milds aren't represented at all on the chart.

I hope this will be taken as constructive criticism; the idea of a chart isn't bad in and of itself, but I don't think a strict hierarchy is the best way to present things.

My own lean would be toward a table with yeast type in one column and then base malt in the other; I don't have the books to hand right this instant second, but I seem to recall that some sources (Darryl Richman in Bock comes to mind first) argues that beers can be classified by base malt style (e.g. Bocks are all based on Munich malt, stouts always include roasted barley as the dominant specialty grain...). This strikes me as a natural method.

On the other hand, CAMRA, BJCP (*hides*) and Brewers Association all define beer styles in terms of three variables: yeast, original gravity, and color. Given that those three guidelines already all exist and more or less match, we can go with that to avoid accusations of WP:OR. --Stlemur 08:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I created this chart in order to be able to have a clear view about all the different types of beer around. Before making this chart I was very confused. Then I collected all the information I could about beer classification from Wikipedia articles and I made this chart. I don't expect to have understood everything properly, but I think a chart is clear enough to help people understand the complex world of beer styles.

First of all, my chart can't be considered an original work because I just re-arranged all the data that was already within Wikipedia: my work was just a (hopefully!) smart copy and paste. My only reference is Wikipedia. Since it was a big work of synthesis, there can be mistakes, but that's why I put it here, so we can discuss and improve it!

I will answer to the points of Stlemur:

• my starting point to create the chart is this article, Beer style. In the "Beer styles" section there is "lager" and "ale" (two separated generators of the chart), "lambic" is in a different section (if it were an ale, it would be within the "ale" section), the last section is "hybrid beers" that can't be classified just because they are hybrid. That is why the three main kinds from every other kind starts are lager, ale and lambic. Can we say that all the fermentation of all the lambic happens on the top of the beer?? if it does, then they are ales (and we'd better fix the article), if it does not for at least one lambic, then I think we'd better keep it as a different kind of beer.
• I agree about the fact that Belgian ale is not a kind of beer of its own, but you will agree with me that Abbey beer, Amber beer, [..], Trappist beer and Tripel are Belgian ales. It's like a trick to improve the output of the chart. The same for Dark ale: I have never seen "Dark ale" printed on any beer bottle, so I wouldn't say it's a kind of beer, but you might agree with me that Stout and Porter are Dark ales. Do you know what I mean?? if you have any idea about how to improve the general layout, it's absolutely welcome.
• from the Saison article, Saison is the name given to pale ales brewed in Wallonia, so I put it under pale ale in chart, what's odd with it?
• yes, I forgot to include Mild beers: tell me where it should be, and I will add it (of, if you can edit the SVG file, you can do it by your self :-)
• the chart might simplify the argument too much, but it will be very easy to understand. If we make a table or a list, it won't be clearer than reading the article itself. You can make a table as well, but I think a chart is much more useful.

When I have published this chart, I know it was going to start a discussion because I made a big work of synthesis and simplification. I expected this, and I like it because it will help me to have a better diagram: that's the way Wikipedia works, and there is nothing bad in it. If you want to express your opinion, you are absolutely welcome, but please, don't just say "I don't like it", but try to explain exactly what is wrong with it and suggest ways to improve it :-) Alessio Damato 17:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What's odd about Saison is that it's a pale ale in that it's based on pale malt, but it's a Belgian ale in that it uses, or can use -- it's hard to state universals about a farmhouse style -- Belgian-style recipes (spices, candi sugar), Belgian-style fermentation (high temperatures, up to 30 degrees C) and Belgian strains of yeast (high attenuators). It's cases like this which I think rule out a strict single hierarchy, although a multiple chart -- one classifying by malt, one by yeast, one by geographic origin -- might have some merit. --Stlemur 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the chart-maker, Saison is listed at the pale ale article (which is odd). The chart merely reflects the way we have described styles. — goethean ॐ 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks goethean. I understood the point about Saison, I can't express an opinion because I didn't try any in my life and I hardly know it existed... according to what you told me and what I read on the relative article, it looks like it's a pale ale with some extra features, but it is still a pale ale, and so it deserves the place I have chosen. If you disagree with it, first change the beginning of the Saison article, pointing out that it is not a pale ale but it's own style, and I'll move it under "Belgian ales". I changed the diagram adding Mild, I hope you agree about where I placed it. Anything else to be fixed?? Alessio Damato 10:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with a fixed beer style chart is that it is difficult to embrace the complexities of the differing ways that beers are grouped. Saison is an ale made with pale malt and so is a pale ale. It has associations with Belgium, so people like to group it with Belgian beers. If the same beer is made in France people call it a Biere de Garde. Beers are sometimes grouped by country as well as by recipe or ingredients or colour. Such is the delightful muddle of beer classification! SilkTork 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

the chart is meant to give an overview, then any reader can get more precise information on the relative article. I wrote "Belgian ale" meaning all the particular ales that can't be classified as anything else and that were invented in Belgium. I can replace it with "Special ale" if you prefer, but then we should make a "Special ale" article (while Belgian ale alread exists).

About multiple names, I had the same problem with Wheat beer, that can be called white beer, bier blanche (is it spell right?), weissbier, weizenbier, etc. but it's the same thing. A user who is confused can go in the relative article to know more about it.

if you think any other way of classifying can be useful, we can make that as well, no problem :-), but I think a chart is the clearest thing. Alessio Damato 06:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to see a chart of some kind, but from the drinkers' POV, not the brewer's. I would find it interesting, for example, if the chart showed two separate categories: 1. alcohol content 2. taste (bitter, sweet, sour). Most of the data for this kind of chart is easily available (the alcohol content, for example), however quantifying taste may be more difficult.

• As far as naming, I would recommend using as few names as possible -- perhaps more just general groups -- so as to keep it as simple as possible. Mikebe 14:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought this approach could be useful (that was the same approach of Wikipedia articles, even if nobody noticed it...) because, thanks to this, anybody can understand which kind of beer is drinking just looking at the label of the bottle and at the chart. Any other kind of classification is welcome, but I think we'd better try to work on finishing this existing chart first. I agree about using as few names as possible, to keep it simple and clear, but I didn't want to ignore any important kind. Which one do you think is in excess in the chart?? Alessio Damato 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of those charts in the other articles are written by home-brewers who think technical information is important for everyone. I agree with you completely that the idea should be to let anyone get more information about the type of beer they are drinking even if they know nothing about home-brewing. Unfortunately, beer labels are not the same in all countries. Germany, for example, usually lists the beer type in addition to the name. Belgium and the Netherlands, however, list the type much less. In Europe, I believe all bottles list abv, although I am not sure about the US. It is possible to get a list of the major beer types from brewers groups in Belgium and Germany and from CAMRA in the UK. I am not sure if that is too much or not. Perhaps take a look and see what you think. BTW, I see that you are Italian. Do you know this site?: http://www.kuaska.it/nuovo/default.asp?a=storia&lan=ita Mikebe 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the links but... do you speak all languages?! I didn't know the Italian link either, it's really interesting. I don't think this chart goes too technical. Since it puts similar beers in the same "section", if a drinker has a reminder of a beer he had in the past, he can guess how another similar beer is going to taste like. And since the chart is quite small (compared to the huge complexity of brewing), it can give a quick overview. I know, Belgian beers usually don't show the beer type as big as Germans do, but it is often written smaller somewhere on the label, and the user can look for it until he finds any of the names of the chart.

In the links you gave me, beer types are listed in detail, we should try to understand which ones are kinds of beer, which other ones are sub-sub-sub-kinds... If a particular kind is very rare, then it is to be classified as "special" or "hybrid", and there is no room for it in such a general chart.

In the CAMRA website I found Old ale and Golden ale that could be worth being inserted in the chart. The Italian site you sent me is very detailed about beer styles, I will take a look carefully when I have more time. The best way to improve this chart would be to show this chart on the German and French wikipedia, so that more people can express their opinion about it. Who's going to do that? Alessio Damato 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the description of the image on Commons according to this discussion, moreover I made some changes from the original version that started this discussion. So, if you want to make other comments, please start a new thread. Alessio Damato 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess my biggest problem with the chart is that the whole "dark ale" catagory is just different types of PORTERS KenBest 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick references

Style guidelines:

• Brewers Association style guidelines 2006
• BJCP style guidelines 2004
• CBA beer style guidelines
• NGWBJ beer styles
• CAMRA outline (without numbers)
• Deutsche Brauer Bund guidelines (in German)

Not readily found: SIBA and CAMRA guidelines. (I have CAMRA guidelines on paper at home, but I don't know if I'm allowed to put them somewhere public.) User:Mikebe suggested that there should also be guidelines for Belgian beer styles somewhere on the Zythos page, but I don't speak any Flemish at all. --Stlemur 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• As your links clearly demonstrate, "beer style guidelines" is an expression used by brewers, not by beer drinkers. And so, is of more interest to brewers than drinkers. However, having said that, my goal was not to start a debate, simply to state what I consider a valid point. There is an association for Belgian brewers and they have a style list on their site (in English). I think their list also demonstrates the difference between how "style guides" are greatly different between European brewing nations and the US. Here it is: http://www.beerparadise.be/emc.asp?pageId=727 For comparison, here is another list (from the Zythos site) made by someone who is proposing a new beer festival. He says that his group is trying to present as many different Belgian beer styles as possible and offers the list of styles they hope to present: http://www.zythos.be/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5149#5149 Mikebe 14:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Style guidelines are not just for brewers, but are for anyone with a reason or a desire to judge beers or to categorize them. A big thank you to those who have located other sources of style guidelines. I personally am most familiar with BJCP, but I think drawing from all these different style guidelines can only be a good thing.

I assume you are a home-brewer because I have only heard this from other home-brewers. In the milieu where I drink beer, nobody says "what style was that?" they say instead "did you like that beer". That is how beer drinkers talk with each other. What you suggest is how brewers talk with each other. Let's at least be clear about that. Mikebe 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we drink in different milieus. --Stlemur 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. I drink in pubs (or cafés, as they are called in Belgium and the Netherlands). In what milieu is it that you drink? Mikebe 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One reverted edit raised the question of how many beer styles there are. I think that's like asking how many styles of music there are. Is stout a style? Well, yes, but it can be subdivided into sweet stout, dry stout, milk stout, oatmeal stout, Russian Imperial stout, and probably others. Are those all styles too, then?

Until recently there was a subsection of Elements of Style that listed vital statistics; it has been gutted and renamed, and is now largely redundant with other subsections; in my opinion should be restored to something closer to what it was. What do others think? --Mwalimu59 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Strength!

The strength of the beer can refer to three variables: original gravity, final gravity, and alcohol concentration.

Isn't it one variable --- the beer's alcohol concentration, which is determined by the difference between the final gravity and the original gravity? The final gravity can determine the mouthfeel, but that's not referred to as 'strength'. — goethean ॐ 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The brewer can control originl gravity, and he can control attenuation. I count that as two independent variables; final gravity is a dependent variable of those two and any two uniquely determine the third.

I'm not crazy about how final gravity is presented there but I'm hoping I can make that into a segue into yeast and attenuation. The whole "Elements of beer style" section needs a complete reimagining but I can't do it all at once so I'm improving bits as I have the time and energy. A lot of the material shouldn't even be here.

My basic vision for the structure is parallel discussions of different approaches to beer style; style as a legal classification, style in the beer festival/competition context, and then the zen "there are no styles" argument. --Stlemur 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think of beer styles as a product of the history of brewing. English brewing techniques and ingredients -> English beers, etc. — goethean ॐ 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal end of things is important, too. Roasted barley in stouts was encouraged by a different duty being charged on malted gran and unmalted grain, there were German legal restrictions against brewing lagers within city boundaries that encouraged the establishment of altbier, early intellectual property rules stifled gruit... --Stlemur 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

Since there seems to be some dispute over which links should remain in the External Links section of the article. After a quick reread of WP:EL I would like to offer the following opinions on the links in question.

• The history of British beer styles
• The history of lager styles
• Campaign For Real Ale (CAMRA)

The above three are the ones still present in the current edit of the article. Unlike a couple of the pages below, none of the above pages attempts to cover all beer styles. The first two give pretty detailed coverage of a subset of beer styles and as such would be good to keep; the third (the CAMRA page) isn't that closely about beer styles per se and if paring down the list is needed it would be one of the leading candidates for removal (though it would be a good link from one or more of the specific style articles). If you're going to keep it, at least link to the styles subpage instead.

• BeerAdvocate Beer Styles
• BJCP
• Brewers Association
• Michael Jackson's Beer Styles Index

All of these at least attempt to cover all beer styles. Of these, the Brewers Association page is the most homebrew oriented and if that's grounds for removal would be the first to go. The BJCP page should probably be changed to link the style subpage but is still one of the best resources I've seen on beer styles. It is somewhat homebrew oriented but I don't think that's enough of a detriment to outweigh the quality of the information. Both the Beer Advocate and the Michael Jackson page are oriented toward beer drinkers, not homebrewers, and both include a number of beer styles not covered by any of the pages from the first group.

If the objective for links in the article to give the reader the best resources for additional information then IMO the CAMRA and the Brewers Association links could go; the rest should stay. --Mwalimu59 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate over on the beer project talk page that gives the backstory on the deletions. I say keep the last 3 of the 4 in question (with corrections as noted) because they contained detailed explanation of various styles. Thetrick 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that objections have been raised about BeerAdvocate, that one can be left out as well. As for the others, if anyone objects to restoring the BJCP and Michael Jackson links, I would ask that you please suggest suitable alternate links to add that provide something approaching full coverage of the range of beer styles, which as noted previously is not provided by any of the links currently still in the article. --Mwalimu59 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Michael Jackson link, but the BJCP is full of crap. Their style guide for European beers are mostly nonsense. Bear in mind this is not a home-brewing article (those already exist). Also we don't need to have a million links. The ones there, plus the Michael Jackson seem reasonable enough to me and I don't see any need for the others. Mikebe 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement that the BJCP page is "full of crap" - I've met some of the people who crafted the style guidelines and they have a good deal of respect for the history and the origins of the styles, including the European ones. But with the Michael Jackson page included I won't belabor the discussion further. I've gone ahead and made the edits to the page per the discussion here. I hope everyone's reasonably happy with the results. --Mwalimu59 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the links. Regarding the BJCP, I will be more than happy to prove my claim based not on people's "respect", but based on fact. Mikebe 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit history of several beer-related articles and your user talk page, I've decided there are better uses for my time than engaging you in a discussion of the merits of the BJCP. --Mwalimu59 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! That works for me. Mikebe 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

During the above discussion I was not aware that the two europeanbeerguide pages are maintained by a frequent contributor to these pages, which makes their inclusion here questionable under WP:EL. --Mwalimu59 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this section: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."? After his treatment here yesterday (see Goethean's comments), he has decided to stop contributing (he's a friend of mine IRL) at least for now. His pages contain much detailed information and are very well documented (feel free to check for yourself), so I think they would stand up well under review. If you want to do a RFC anyhow, I won't object, although, as I said, I think it's unnecessary. Mikebe 13:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How many times have you two dramatically promised quit Wikipedia now? I think we're on our third or fourth attempt. — goethean ॐ 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the confession. It will come in handy. Mikebe 14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Malt Liquor

Why is Malt Liquor not included in the list of beer styles, even though wikipedia has an article on it describing it as a style of beer? 142.157.194.73 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, though malt liquor is a beer, it doesn't fall into a traditional style. On the rare occasions that it's presented at beer competitions is is entered in the "specialty beer" category, a catch-all category for any beer that doesn't fit into an existing style category. I'm hoping to find time to rewrite this article shortly, and I'll be sure to include this information when I do. – ClockworkSoul 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful when applying US beer competition rules to the whole world. Globally there's lots of unhopped beer out there. --Stlemur (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Generally speaking, malt liquor is an existing style category. Talk to any convenience store or package store owner, and you will be shown an entire array of similarly-made, similar-tasting alcoholic beverages called "malt liquor." That this has been true for many decades surely attests to the style's status as traditional. Dunkelweizen (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about that claim, "there's a lot of unhopped beer out there." The word 'beer' enters english from german and was used specifically to distinguish fermented barley beverages made with hops from other forms of fermented barley beverages; this was around 1500. Etymologically speaking, 'beer' referred to a hopped beverage. Given that the english speakers wouldn't recognise most of what get's called "unhopped beer" as beer and there's little extant tradition of english speakers calling it beer, it might be better to call it something else. That's not to malign it; it can be great stuff. But just because there's not a word for it in english and the stuff best resembles beer doesn't make it beer. If you start looking around at dictionaries, most of them define 'beer' to mean a hopped alcoholic beverage that contains a large proportion of barley. 70.171.199.139 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

Hello all. There has been a conflict brewing – if you'll forgive the shameless pun – regarding the inclusion of the BJCP competitive style guidelines as an external link. I can see in the discussion above that it was deemed by a couple of editors to be inadequate as a source, but I'm still not clear as to why it's inadequate even as an external link. Certainly, creative brewers color outside the lines, but it seems a reasonably interesting "additional reading" resource as long as it can be clarified in our own text that styles in practice are far "fuzzier" than they are presented there. For that reason, I would like to see it included as an external link, but not considered a reliable source for the purposes of citation. – ClockworkSoul 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm against including a link to the BJCP style definitions for European beers. My reasons are simple: they are inaccurate, incomplete and unreferenced. I think that makes them pretty useless as a source.Patto1ro (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you say "I'm not clear as to why it's inadequate even as an external link", let me respond. The bjcp makes up exercises for amateur brewing contests (and trains people to judge these exercises). I have seen no place on the bjcp site where they claim that these exercises are actual beer styles (or that they are not actual beer styles). They provide no documentation and no references for these exercises. Nevertheless, the names they use can often be mistaken for actual styles. So, say we have an article about xyz beer and the bjcp has an xyz beer listed as well. There is a very good chance that, assuming xyz beer is non-American, the information here will conflict with their information. We, I hope, provide information using notable source material, the bjcp does not. However, not everyone knows that and the conflicting information leads to, at best, confusion, and, at worst, a loss in our credibility. If we know that the information they provide is not accurate (and that is certainly the case for many of their non-American beers), how does it help us to lead our readers to inaccurate and possibly conflicting information? BTW, the guy who has kept replacing the bjcp link in this article is a troll. Mikebe (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is and who is not a troll is a highly contentious matter.

We, I hope, provide information using notable source material, the bjcp does not.

There is no Wikipedia requirement that external links need to be reliably sourced. Mikebe's project seems to be to remove the 'inauthentic' material from Wikipedia and to only keep the information that describes 'authentic' European brewing traditions. Leaving aside the efficacy of this project (and its relationship to Wikipedia policy), there are other groups, some of which may be notable in their own right. Such as American homebrewing organizations. I trust readers to be able to figure out that the BJCP is an American homebrewing group, and not a lecture on European brewing history. Even if the link does not make that sufficiently clear, it would be a simple matter to do so in the link text. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy, and no consensus, (and there never has been) for removing the BJCP link. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got two duelling viewpoints here. From WP:EL:

What should be linked:.... Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

but

Links normally to be avoided:....Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

So: is the BJCP's material factually inaccurate, or is it just knowledgeable but unreliable? I can see both sides of the argument and we've spilled a lot of electrons discussing it. Both sides point to the same solution, though: we need reliable source on the subject of beer style and evidence to back up our arguments. -Stlemur (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you will look at the years-long discussion between Mikebe, Patto1ro, myself and ohers on this, you will see Mikebe insisting that the information in the BJCP link is fictional, misleading, harmful, etc. It's not. There are different opinions on the reconstruction of historical styles of beer. Some people can handle a certain amount of disagreement, others insist that anything except that which reflects their own opinion must be excised from Wikipedia. Well, this is a group project, and links that may help the reader should not be removed because one or two users — one of whom continues to substitute links to his own home page for the BJCP links — want them to. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So: is the BJCP's material factually inaccurate, or is it just knowledgeable but unreliable?

Do you really think that we are going to definitively decide that here? To attempt to do so would be foolish as well as an exercise in original research. Certainly there is a certain number of people who do not, and will not, share Mikebe's view that the BJCP is the Antichrist. We support the inclusion of these links. Mikebe has made it his personal project to enforce the removal of each of these links from the encyclopedia. His project is against consensus, and against Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying, show us a source. If we find a scholarly book on beer styles and it looks like the BJCP's styles follow that, then the BJCP's guidelines are vindicated but the link is redundant since we'll have a reliable source to cite. If we look at a number of scholarly sources and what the BJCP says doesn't match any of them, or is flatly contradicted by the bulk of them, then the BJCP's guidelines are deprecated and the link should be cut with prejudice. --Stlemur (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming comical. That's not the way external links are treated in any other area of Wikipedia, and you know it. In fact, that's not the way we treat other external links in this article, like Patto1ro's home page. — goethean ॐ 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as it's clear that it's not a source, I gues it doesn't do much harm being there...one thing which worries me, though, is this edit summary. There was a lot of discivility last time there was major discussion in this article, and I'd rather avoid a repeat. --Stlemur (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately citing irrelevant policy crazy allegations edit warring more. Civil? — goethean ॐ 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers. Even if someone else is discivil, it only hurts the article if someone else responds in kind. --Stlemur (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. I took your inclusion of a link to my edit to constitute pointing a finger. While we're at it, you might take note that anti-BJCP crusader extraordinaire Mikebe is not exactly the most friendly, cooperative, cuddly user in the Wikipedia project. Plenty of porcupine-ish examples can be supplied. — goethean ॐ 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave that there. It looks like we can agree that accusations of... well... whatever will not get us anywhere. If we can keep a cool head and ignore those who don't we'll have more time to improve wikipedia. Our coverage of beer-related articles could improve greatly if we did more discussing and less bickering. – ClockworkSoul 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BJCP deserves to be mentioned. I suspect some harbor a grudge against BJCP, perhaps clockwork couldn't pass the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.61 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused. I actually support keeping it, but would prefer to avoid a revert war. – ClockworkSoul 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Is there anybody besides Mikebe who is opposed to replacing the BJCP link? – ClockworkSoul 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the question should be whether people want it, I think the question is whether it is permitted under WP policy. Since the link policy WP:LINKSTOAVOID says: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", let's take a look. First: unverifiable research. Where does the bjcp list its research? Answer: it doesn't. Nothing is documented, so it cannot be verified. Second: factually inaccurate. OK, let's take a look, for example, at Belgian Tripel (style 18c): "Appearance: Deep yellow to deep gold in color." Now, anybody who would like, check your favourite beer site for the colour of Westvleteren 12 and/or Rochefort 10. Both are dark brown/black. Both, incidentally, have been made for many years before the founding of the bjcp, so this nothing new.

This is a misguided understanding of "verifiable." Something is verifiable if it can be corroborated by an independent source; one need not direct the reader to a source of verification to be verifiable. Moreover, the BJCP does actually mention some of the publications that they've used in making style guidelines (I might add that those publications are extensively researched), explicitly acknowledges Michael Jackson as a pioneer in the field. So we even know where to begin to check that their ideas comport with the ideas of other writers on these subjects.70.171.199.139 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Belgian "specialty ales" (style 16e). "Trappist Quadrupels". There is one such beer, but it is made in the Netherlands, not in Belgium. It is also the name of the beer, not the style. There is not one single "Trappist Quadrupel" made in Belgium.

This is actually a quite controversial case, though I admit that the label Belgian is a little misleading, "Trappist Quadrupel" is not so bad. Stan Heironymous, in his very well researched book on Belgian Brewing "Brew Like A Monk", writes about La Trappe, which was briefly a trappist brewery in the Netherlands and had the appellation revoked when it sold to a Dutch Brewing company. According to those that sold, the problem was simply maintaining an order of monks. They did produce a beer which they called a Quadrupel. Moreover, Quadrupel has become a label on some american beers obviously of Belgian inspiration (and using derivatives of trappist yeast.) While this arguably makes Quadrupel not a style, Quadrupel is not listed as a style per say, but one of the myriad "specialized" belgian ales.

I really find your argument unconvincing, since the style guidelines make it clear that this category is to be used for submitting to beer competitions with a beer that is not appropriately labeled as something else, which is to say that the style category is quite upfront about what it is and not misleading at all. Yes, the BJCP styles include some catch all categories that aren't rightly considered styles, but they are clear about it when a judging category doesn't not fit some historically entrenched approach to beer. Since the guidelines are very clear about what they are but also provide a lot of accurate information to the reader, I think they're great. (Indeed, I would appriciate it if those that object would show me where the BJCP contradicts the opinions of other groups on these subjects.)

Talk about unverifiable work: the BJCP no longer recognizes such a style and has not for many years. Your case against the BJCP seems largely based on unfamiliarity with the work the style guidelines. 70.171.199.139 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. You are familiar, but the thing you site is hardly part of a convincing case against the BJCP.70.171.199.139 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is only a small sample of "factually inaccurate material." There is plenty more. If the site violates WP policy, shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Mikebe (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would actually like to hear about more of this supposedly grand quantity of misleading information in the BJCP style guidelines. Since the only case you've offered is no longer part of the guidelines, you're case isn't very convincing. Also, it seems to me that if we knew of a source that was say 95% correct and very comprehensive on the subject of First Ladies of the U.S., we'd be inclinded to include that despite missteps. 70.171.199.139 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Count me among those apposed to the BJCP link. Not out of any personal vendetta--I have never participated in one of these contests, and I'm fine with them, so there's no bad blood--but rather because it just doesn't merit inclusion in this particular article. It's a nice heuristic tool for homebrewers, as well as a solid basis for judging homebrewed beer, but as has been pointed out repeatedly here (I hate to add to the redundance), it just doesn't get us far in understanding real live beer styles, out in the wild. Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mikebe: I suspect by your response that I came across as more confrontational than I meant to. Please let me clarify: I was sincerely just trying to gauge the opinions of other editors because I was only hearing the voice of a couple of individuals, and a broad voice is very helpful to me, because I wasn't participating during the original debate. Honestly, I wasn't in any way trying to jab at you or intentionally single you out. In the future, I'll try to keep in mind that some people are still a bit battle-weary and frame my questions more carefully. – ClockworkSoul 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. However, I am curious why the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy is not relevant here? Mikebe (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, at this point, I'd say just flip a coin to determine whether it stays or goes. The inclusion of this one link is distracting us from putting in sourced information from real authorities. --Stlemur (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree. WP:LINKSTOAVOID is relevant, but I think the issue is whether BJCP is inaccurate enough to consider "misleading". Some think it's a good place to start, while educating people on the finer points later on. I would prefer to keep it as a humble ExLink and make it clear that it's not a reliable source of style definitions, but I wouldn't be devastated if consensus was greatly against it. The big problem now is that opinion appears roughly 50/50, so flipping a coin may actually be a logical way to go. Mike, call even or odd. I'll have somebody at the village pump pick a random number. If the first person to respond picks a number with your choice, the link stays off. If not, it'll go back in with appropriate qualifiers. How's that sound? – ClockworkSoul 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted the request here. I logged out so they wouldn't be able to easily trace back to this discussion. I'll go with odd because like a nitwit I didn't give you enough time to respond, but if you prefer we can just redo it. Will this work to end this discussion once and for all? Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. There's a late vote above. I'm pasting it here: "I'm against including a link to the BJCP style definitions for European beers. My reasons are simple: they are inaccurate, incomplete and unreferenced. I think that makes them pretty useless as a source.Patto1ro (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)" (It's the first response under External Links above.). I guess that makes flipping the coin unnecessary: 3 against the link, one for it and one neutral. Did I count that correctly? Mikebe (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think both the coin flip and you agree: we don't need the link. That settles that (I hope)! The link can stay off. – ClockworkSoul 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'm drinking a Westmalle Dubbel at the moment to celebrate. Anyone else want one? Mikebe (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's so funny: I just had one last night! My second home/local ale house is pretty well-stocked and I've been working my way through its newly-revised list of Belgians. – ClockworkSoul 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They've got a pretty decent beer list -- you must feel pretty lucky. But the prices!!!! I get Westmalle at the supermarket near my house for 96 eurocents. But I have to pour it in the glass myself. Mikebe (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The prices are... well... ridiculous. Stupid weak dollar. That's why I usually brew my own, but I can't brew a good dubbel to save my life. If you want anything in the extended stout family, however, I'm your guy! – ClockworkSoul 16:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you like stouts, have you ever seen this: http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/de-molen-1914-triple-stout--sss/84992/

Ron Pattinson (user Patto1ro I quoted above) found the recipe, modified it and had it brewed by a local brewery. It's quite good. I suspect you would like it. Mikebe (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear here. Linking to the BJCP is now forbidden from any Wikipedia article? Or just this article? Are all links to American homebrewing organizations forbidden? And we will enforce that Ron Pattinson/Patto1ro's website, on which he collects money with the use of banner ads, will be at the bottom of each Wikipedia beer article? Is that the consensus? — goethean ॐ 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Suits me. (Since you asked.) Dunkelweizen (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also: please read Wikipedia:Vote.

Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. Polling, while not forbidden, should be used with care, if at all, and alternatives should be considered. In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Apart from that, on occasion, "higher" bodies (e.g. the Arbitration Committee, Board of Trustees, or Jimbo Wales) can impose decisions regardless of consensus.

Potential problems with voting include:

You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options. This is especially problematic when there are several issues at hand.

By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, voting may contribute to a breakdown in civility and make it difficult for participants to assume good faith. A vote on a controversial issue is often extremely acrimonious.

Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case.

Even when a straw poll is stated to be non-binding, sometimes people decide afterwards that they should nevertheless do what the majority wants, in effect retroactively treating the straw poll result as binding. While it is reasonable to ask other editors to consider majority opinion during the course of the debate, no straw poll may ever be used to force minority opinion editors to accept a majority opinion.

If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, people would be tempted to also use voting with respect to articles. People have been known to call a vote on whether or not a fact is true. We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters.

— goethean ॐ 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets take this issue to a vote.

I count 4 votes for bjcp, 3 votes for deleting it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt dizzle guy (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 

If you take the vote and immediately count without hearing from anyone else, how can you count more than one vote? I'll be voter number two and vote against the BJCP link. Of course, there's no reason to delete the current links--why do you keep doing that?

As I've said before, homebrewers use it as a handy heuristic, and it's helpful to classify judgeable categories, but it can't be considered an authority on real, historical brewing traditions. And why should it be? That's not it's purpose. Who are we to try to blow it up into some sort of scholarly reference? Dunkelweizen (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the BJCP link should be included, just my 2/5ths of a nickel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouPepe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine (although if the site violates WP policy, it's moot). But why, earlier this month, when you added the link, did you insist on deleting other links, too? Your actions make your motives seem a little suspicious. Dunkelweizen (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole of this section, but I question using BJCP as a source and an external link on the Beer style page as the information can be inaccurate and misleading. I think it would be appropriate to have a link to BJCP on the homebrewing page, specially in a discussion on American homebrewing competitions, but not appropriate as a guide to traditional world beer styles. There is much to commend the BJCP for, and the programme does aim to educate and inform people about brewing beer. It is unfortunate that the guidelines for entering and judging homebrews in various categories are being used by some people out of context as a guide to world beer, but BJCP do themselves encourage that as they proudly feel themselves that the guidelines are based on accurate research. However, it is possible to go through the styles that I know well and point out the misleading errors, and if people in favour of using the BJCP guides would like me to do that, and to provide reliable sources to show the errors in the BJCP guidelines I will do so. Just as a quick example - BJCP say: "In England today, “ESB” is a brand unique to Fullers" - however, ESB stands for Extra Special Bitter and has been used for many years by many brewers. I have just drunk a bottle of ESB brewed by the JSP Brewery of Brierly Hill in 1978. Anyway - here are a few more modern ESBs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc, etc, etc.... There are hundreds of ESBs in the UK - but as they are mainly cask ales they will not be seen in America, and so not available to the writers of the style guides. I'll also point out that the BJCP says: "Bitter was created as a draught alternative (i.e., running beer) to country-brewed pale ale around the start of the 20th century". I have on the table - Old British Beers by Dr John Harrison, which gives details from old brewery records , and among records of recipes for what is Bitter in all but name, there is one for "Bitter" - 1880, Simonds Brewery, and I have Martyn Cornell's book - Beer, page 145: "At least one author in 1884 regarded the development of Burton IPA as the invention of bitter beer in general. Certainly IPA's spread in Britain coincides with the growth in what was called variously in the 1840s and 1850s 'bitter ale', 'pale ale' and 'bitter beer'." These are just two quick examples, there are others if people are still not convinced. SilkTork *^YES! 23:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment seems to misunderstand the word "brand" which refers to a trademark, not to a style of beer. In fact, as recently as 2003, the three letter combination "ESB" was ruled in a U.K. Court to be the a trademark owned by Fuller, Smith and Turner. You are wrong about the trademark ESB, and you can see a U.K. Government website to prove my point here: proof. I accept the possibility that this decision has been reversed since 2003, but the BJCP is certainly not to be dismissed for not knowing the history of British Copyright Law after 2003; it would be at best a minor error in these otherwise 97% accurate descriptions. philosofool (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I wish I'd read the whole section - I'd have seen that the conclusion was not to include the BJCP link! SilkTork *^YES! 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

we'll take it to a vote, I vote to include the BJCP link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.186.116 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of the BJCP

Those against the BJCP claim that it is inaccurate. Those for it think the supposed inaccuracies are quibbles, rather than substantial errors. Mikebe has claimed that we have not refuted the notion that the BJCP is inaccurate. I'll attempt to refute that claim by example; I claim that the description of Trippel is mostly very accurate; all that I can say about it is that I agree, and that other sources agree with me. I'd like someone who objects that the BJCP is inaccurate to explain what is wrong with the descriptions of the aroma, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel and overall impression the BJCP offers for Tripel:

Aroma:Complex with moderate to significant spiciness, moderate fruity esters and low alcohol and hop aromas. Generous spicy, peppery, sometimes clove-like phenols. Esters are often reminiscent of citrus fruits such as oranges, but may sometimes have a slight banana character. A low yet distinctive spicy, floral, sometimes perfumy hop character is usually found. Alcohols are soft, spicy and low in intensity. No hot alcohol or solventy aromas. The malt character is light. No diacetyl.
Appearance: Deep yellow to deep gold in color. Good clarity. Effervescent. Long-lasting, creamy, rocky, white head resulting in characteristic “Belgian lace” on the glass as it fades.
Flavor: Marriage of spicy, fruity and alcohol flavors supported by a soft malt character. Low to moderate phenols are peppery in character. Esters are reminiscent of citrus fruit such as orange or sometimes lemon. A low to moderate spicy hop character is usually found. Alcohols are soft, spicy, often a bit sweet and low in intensity. Bitterness is typically medium to high from a combination of hop bitterness and yeast-produced phenolics. Substantial carbonation and bitterness lends a dry finish with a moderately bitter aftertaste. No diacetyl.
Mouthfeel: Medium-light to medium body, although lighter than the substantial gravity would suggest (thanks to sugar and high carbonation). High alcohol content adds a pleasant creaminess but little to no obvious warming sensation. No hot alcohol or solventy character. Always effervescent. Never astringent

philosofool (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Philosofool (you really should sign your posts). This seems to be a description of Westmalle Tripel. That's one beer. One beer does not make a style, as I'm sure you will agree. The tripels made by several other trappists (Westvleteren and Rochefort, for example) do not fit this description at all. Mikebe (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which beer of Westvleteren is the tripel? Any why do you think that any of those is the same style as Westmalle? philosofool (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As it happens I know a very nice article about triples you can read and find the answers yourself. It's right here at Wikipedia. Mikebe (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

From everything that Tripel says about the flavors of Tripel, it might as well be russian imperial stout. However, if we use the representative examples listed on that page (I have tried all save Westvleteren 12), I'd say that the above description is spot on: it captures Cinq Cents, Westmalle, New Belgium (solventy but otherwise as described), Affligem, Allagash and La Fin du Monde accurately. philosofool (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

It hasn't been as issue yet, but with the BJCP link coming and going, I would like to ask everybody (anonymous and otherwise) to keep the 3-revert rule in mind. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 02:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious that mikebe harbors a grudge against wikipedia, thus i will continue to revert his edits past the 3 revert rule/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.61 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do, that's your choice. I will, however, have no choice but to block you if you do. – ClockworkSoul 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

u aint gonna block me, i am making constructive edits. mikebe and st lemur should be banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.61 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly will if I have to. An edit war is an edit war, regardless of its contents. – ClockworkSoul 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you can't reply, but as you can see, I keep my word. See you in 1 week. – ClockworkSoul 12:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does every beer article have to include a link to ron pattinson's website, which he profits from via banner ads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouPepe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Mikebe work for ron pattinson? He is the only wiki editor insisting on linking to ron's page. This has been taken to a vote and the consensus is to keep the bjcp link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt dizzle guy (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

This article has been sysop protected due to the long-term edit warring. Tan | 39 15:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beer style/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

we need some more inline citations to move beyond the "B" class. Gentgeen 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)