Talk:Beer/Archive 3

Improving this page
I archieved the old discussion as it contained lots of old stuff that wasn't really a part of the current project. As you can see, the GA review remains a part of the current talk page. This is for the obvious reason: as we continue to edit and improve the Beer article, we want to keep the GA review in mind. Indeed, responding to the GA review should be the first priority for this article.

There are a couple of things that I have noticed that I think detract from this article that aren't mentioned in the GA review but I think probably contribute to the GA review's assesment. Now, let's get on to improving this article wherever we can.philosofool 18:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is unsympathetic to bad beer. Unsurprisingly, it's pretty clearly written by people who like good beer, but that leaves the Bud and Heineken quality stuff underrepresented in the article, espcially given the degree to which it is over represented in the market place. This article has a duty to represent that stuff in a POV-free way. I know it hurts to talk about bud like it deserves the name beer, but we have to.
 * The article strays from being general in a lot of places. On this point:
 * Remember that this is an encycopedia, not a book of trivia. Trivia, no matter how interesting, or on topic, or cool, is still trivia. Trivia is inappropriate to an encyclopedia.  Statistics should be informative about the topic of beer in a general way.  "The most hops ever used in a beer was 32 lbs. in a barrel" is not general.
 * It's okay for exceptions to remain un-noted. A lot of times this article decends into lengthy caveats, or mentions this one beer by this one brewery in this one corner of the brewing world that is an exception to a rule that applies to every other beer ever.  That creates a really awkward paragraph that doesn't really serve the point of an article whose purpose is to inform in a general way.
 * Longer is not always better. Some of the sections in this article can probably be trimmed and streamlined.
 * Use "See main article: [XXXX]"--using more specific articles in wikipedia is a good way to include information that makes particular sections of this article too specific or unweildly.
 * There are some sections that just need a little re-writing and touch up, where additional good information has been added, probably over the course of several edits, and the result has become jerky presentation.

Beer and Society
I renamed the section "culture" to "beer and society". I move "health effects" to a subsection of "beer and society" rather than making it it's own section. I also moved "vessels" to "serving" as that seems like the most appropriate place for that topic.

I think the renaming has some good advantages. First off, it's a little more specific that "culture", which is a little vague. Also, it incorporates the issue of beer and health, since health issues related to beer are a public health concern and hence a social concern. That helps to streamline the page.

This section does need a lot of work. I make some suggestions below and invite others. Oops--forgot to sign that a few days ago: philosofool 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Beer and excess consumption, including alcoholism, should be but is not included here. Remember that this should be an even handed presentation, not a defense of beer as "less nasty" than other alcoholic beverages or an attempt to downplay excess consumption as a social ill. A fair discussion of temperance movements would be good in this space.
 * Economics of beer can be discussed here. How much is consumed, how large is the market. This data is difficult to collect at the international level, so data regarding representative countries would be acceptable.
 * Beer and religion. Alcohol has been a part of many religious practices. Specific information on the use of beer in religious practice would be very interesting. Also, there are many religions that forbid the use of alcohol. Do any of them treat beer differently, or especially?

Suggested Revision of the "Strength" Section
I would like to edit the section on strength to read as follows. Please offer suggestions and objections here. (This is a pretty significant overhaul of the strength section, so I don't want to do it without running it by people first.) I would also like to change the section title to "Alcoholic Strength", since "strength" is a bit coloquial. Other title suggestions are welcome.


 * The content of alcohol in beer is less than that of wine or distilled spirits. Beer ranges from less than 3% alcohol by volume (ABV) to over 12% ABV.  Particular styles of beer have a range of alcoholic strength that is common for them; pale lagers that most consumers are familiar with fall in the range of 4-6%.  Some exceptional beers have reached over 20% ABV, however, this is not typical of any style of beer.


 * The alcohol in beer comes from the fermentation of sugars that are produced during mashing. The quantity of sugar in the wort and the variety of yeast used to ferment the wort determine the amount of alcohol in the final beer. Most of the sugar is derived from the process of mashing, however, sugar is sometimes added directly to the wort. Other ingredients in beer have no effect on the quantity of alcohol in the beer.

I like this better than the previous section because it focuses on general facts rather than minutia that look like a Guiness Book of Records entry. Also, it reads like a section rather than a list a fact about ABV. philosofool 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some excellent recent revisions. And I'm personally excited that someone is taking such a strong interest in this significant article. I like the ideas for the strength section. I would say though that there was a request for details on the strength of beers, and the information on the strongest beers in the world is something that people find of interest. An amalgamation of the two versions is perhaps the best way forward. SilkTork 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction/Lead Edits
The most important thing about the lead is that it summarizes the article well: see the GA review above and WP:LEAD. One of the GA review concerns was that the intro was too short and would not be a good summary of Beer for the reader that wants to get the basics of beer without reading everything in the article, so it's important that we don't leave important facts to be discovered below.

Into was structured so that the order of its sections corresponded to the sections of the article, but this has been undone.

Some recent edits seem to have reverted the article to a state that does this less well. For example, the explicit and accurate definition of beer as any undistilled alcoholic beverage fermermted from sugars derived from starch was deleted infavor of th less accurate alcoholic beverage fermented from a starch.

A paragraph in the intro which accurately summarized beer ingredients was also trimmed in a way that make it less well summarize that subject. Keep in mind that we're looking for conscise but accurate summary in the intro.

Beer styles proves yet again to be a highly controversial subject, and recent edits to the intro have proven that yet again. I don't understand why they were made and the present version is seeming less clear to me that the version from which it was changed. Certinaly the current "Beer uses varying ingredients..." is personification of beer (beer does not use anything, as it has no mind and hence cannot act) and I don't see why this edit is an improvement.

I don't wish to start a mad reversion war, as my experience is that this tends to leave the article in an unagreeable state. Let's discuss this here please.philosofool 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

" For example, the explicit and accurate definition of beer as any undistilled alcoholic beverage fermermted from sugars derived from starch was deleted infavor of th less accurate alcoholic beverage fermented from a starch." - I made some the changes to that. The thinking behind the removal of "undistilled" was that the definition of beer was being made not by what the beer is, but by what it is not. And there are a number of things that beer is not. There is already later on a short paragraph which gives that exclusive definition "Alcoholic beverages fermented from nonstarch sources such as grape juice (wine) or honey (mead), and distilled beverages are not considered to be beer." I've never felt entirely comfortable with the inclusion of that paragraph as I feel it would be more helpful to explain in simple terms what beer is, rather than what it is not. I wonder how many people get beer confused with spirits or wine anyway? SilkTork 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. The point of definitions is to be as accurate as possible.  Sometimes it just helps to be explicit about what something is not, especially when you're distinguishing it from nearby relatives.  Consider writing "A shirt is an article of clothing made from cloth that covers the torso and some or all of the arms. Shirts are distinguished from sweaters and sweatshirts, which are knitted or made from heavy cloth, and from jackets and coats, which are worn over shirts, usually as protection from the elements or as part of formal or business attire." I think that it is very helpful to define shirts by distinguishing them from coats and sweaters in this way. Similarly, beer is part of the family of alcoholic beverages, and for those unfamiliar with them, being told explcitly that it is a different member from wine or distilled beverages is relevant. Anyway, this point isn't one of special concern, so I won't worry about it now.  philosofool 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the term 'beer' is being used too broadly here. Beer, at least in American English, refers to fermented beverages made primarily with barley or wheat and flavored primarily with hops. If beer is made to cover any fermented beverage made from a starch source, it would cover everything from ale to lager to sake to kozu to chica to oshikundu to a number of so-called 'wine coolers'. Just because there is no simple one syllable word that covers all those beverages doesn't mean beer should be made to do so. Thetrick 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that common english usage does not make beer such a broad category. A quick glance at a few dictionaries will indicate that you are right.  Indeed, when hopped ales were first introduced to england, the term used for them was 'bier' (or something like that), which eventually became 'beer'. 'Ale' was a term used for starch based alcoholic beverages of which "bier" was one sort--the sort made with hops.


 * But common english usage does not invovle historical discussion--that's uncommon usage. People talk about sumarian beer and ancient egyptian beer. People ask "when did hops first get used in beer? And where did hops first get used in beer? And how did hops make its way to the British Isles??"  This article needs to be able to respect these facts.


 * Anyway, the fact is that beer, ale and cousins have been with human civilization for so long that it will be impossible to come up with a definition that respects all the varagies of history that have attended it. Instead, the best thing to do is to acknowledge in a clear way that beer as we ordinarily encounter it is hopped and made form barley malt, while conceeding, in a clear way, that this is a relatively recent feature of beer.


 * Perhaps most importantly: this article has been written with this definiton in mind, and it would be a pretty considerable editing task to change the whole article to reflect a change in the definition of beer. It would also (probably) require the creation of new articles to replace the content lost in the editing process.  I'm not sure that I'm entirely against such a move, but it represents a considerable amount of work for those who undertake to do it. Until we, the editors, are willing to undertake such a task, I think that the definition should remain as is in the article.


 * I guess I'm pretty open to the suggestion that we change the definition of beer in this article, but I don't want to do that incompletely. --philosofool 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest creating an article entitled 'fermented beverage' (there isn't one to match the category and it would make sense have one to parallel the distilled beverage article). The new article could have a section for 'beverages fermented from starches' which could then briefly describe beer and its allies and their history.  Other sections could describe beverages fermented from fruits, things beverages from milk, and so on.


 * Another solution would be to use phrases like 'modern beer' and 'historic beer' and 'ancient beer' in the current article, but those are vague terms as well, and clumsy to boot. Thetrick 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edits: Brewing
I recently edited the lead paragraph of this section. It now reads ''Beer is made by brewing. The essential stages of brewing are mashing, sparging, boiling, fermentation and packaging. Most of these stages can be accomplished in several different ways, but the purpose of each stage is the same regardless of the method used to achieve it.''

I would like to use this lead to re-write the current section on brewing. It has gotten a bogged down in details like precise temperatures, durations, dangers of getting to hot and the like. Moreover, I feel that differences in types of mashing and so forth are inessetial to understanding beer from the ordinary perspective, and discussing mashing as having a purpose and how that purpose is accomplished allows one to avoid decending into details that won't really be beneficial in a general article about beer. These details should be included in the brewing article instead. I think each section should also be done in a paragraph rather than list format, with one paragraph for each essential portion of the mash process. Listing isn't really appropriate here, as what's given is not a list. Here's a rough version of a revision for the section on mashing.
 * Mashing is the first stage of brewing. In it, the brewer manipulates the time an temperature of a mixture of water and a starch source, known as a mash, in order to convert starches to fermentable sugars. The mash goes through one or more stages of being raised to a desired temperature and left at the temperature for a period of time. During each of these stages, enzymes in the starch source produce compounds needed for fermentation and further mashing, including the fermentable sugars. The number of stages required in mashing depends on the starch source used to produce the beer.  Most malted barley used today requires only a single stage.

To repeat, I want to edit this section into a paragraph like the one above for each of the major portions of the brewing process (mashing, sparging, boiling, fermenting, and packing.) Objections etc. welcome. philosofool 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I let these suggestions sit on the discussion page for a few days and didn't hear anything. I've made changes along the lines proposed. The general information of this section was not changed, though finer details may have been removed, and all of it has been re-written. The goal was to write the section in a way that covered what all brewing has in common, while neglecting differences in approaches to brewing. Those differences are more appropriately discussed in brewing. The reader who wants to know about beer is interested in an overview, and if he is interested in brewing, he should see that article. A couple of finer points:
 * I got rid of almost all the numbers, like temperatures and times. Where appropriate, I've replaced them with phrases like "about an hour" or "a week to months". Numbers represent a level of detail most appropraite to brewing. Another problem with precise numbers is that they are apt to have exceptions, whereas the alternatives are much less excepted.
 * I got rid of the section on aging beer. This is not really a matter of brewing--it's not something that a brewer in particular does.  This information may be included elsewhere in the article where appropriate, however, here is not the place.
 * I got rid of the stuff on some beer cafes in Antwerp and particular aged beers that really lie far beyond the scope of an article like this. Even people who think this is really important to this article will agree that it is not a matter of brewing beer and hence should be placed elsewhere.

philosofool 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-beers
Neither Kumiss nor pulque are technically beers, since there is no starch involved in their production. Both the mare's milk which becomes kumiss and the aguamiel which becomes pulque are sugar-rich.

--- DrGaellon 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up. philosofool 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've done a little research on pulque, and it does appear that the main carbohydrate is a complex form of fructose rather than starch. I've made adjustments. SilkTork 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This Wikipage states up top, "...and distilled beverages are not considered to be beer." However there are examples in this section of distilled drinks (i.e. soju from Korea). Wouldn't it be better to define beer and then stand by that? Soju is akin to a very, very rough homemade vodka. Why is it then included on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.79.62.21 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Photos
Firstly, why is the main photo of someone's personal collection of bottled beers, rather than a foaming pint or stein? It's tacky, and an amateur photo taken under poor lighting. The second photo is ridiculous; the photographer has a friend in the photo clearly for laughs. Beer has nothing to do with the grinning cad in the left of the picture. It needs a new one. Jackmont, Feb 25, 2007.


 * Fine points all. Editors are encouraged to find better photos. Recommended are those without any possible marketting slant (i.e. no labels or names and avoid something that is obviously, for example, a pint of guiness.) --philosofool 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take issue with the rather aggressive comment by Jackmont. The Grinning Cad (full marks for verbiage, though!) is actually the owner of the establishment he is standing in, The Beer Essentials in Horsham. It is a photo used (I suggest) without the knowledge of the gentleman in the photo. It is a useful photograph in so far that it displays barrels of real ale on a stillage, tapped and/or spiled (illustrating how beer is stored, kept and distributed). While I am sure there is always a better photograph, asserting that this one is "ridiculous" (see? You gained my heartfelt respect for using Cad in the 21st Century, but lost it by reverting to tabloidspeak) is unhelpful at best. And sir, beer has everything to do with the gentleman in the picture- he is a modest, knowledgeable purveyor of beery pleasures to West Sussex and beyond. My silliness aside, this is someone enjoying beer! He is not passed out in a pool of liquid shame, which would be beyond the pale!

I simply wished to defend the chap from an unprovoked attack. May God bless us all.

DJMC, April 26, 2007


 * Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can call people 'grinning cads' at will. Indeed I am aware of this chap. Infact he used to work for the King and Barnes brewery until it closed.  Beers are his trade. He was a brewer. His name is Gareth, Gareth the previous Brewer. But he buys, arranges, displays and sells beery comestibles.  OJS April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * In my opinion the first ("main") image in this article indeed needs to show beer, not just beer bottles (compare with wine or port wine, for example). At least two attempts at doing this have been reverted. Thoughts? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. The current picture (the bottles) is pointless and amateur. I looked on Flickr and found some possibilities here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theimpaler/sets/72057594142922421/ Of course, we'll need to get permission before we can use one. Mikebe 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer University Link
This link is inappropriate. here's why: Please see links normally to be avoided. --philosofool 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page works only intermintently.
 * It is the page of User:JRStutler, who keeps linking it: see evidence here.
 * Many of the sections of the page are incomplete.
 * Most of the section on the page that are complete of potential interest to people in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
 * Hmmmm...interesting. Thanks for posting something explaining your reasons. To your points,
 * ...page only works intermintently. (sic) - I don't remember seeing anywhere in my email, talk page, user page, nor on this page any issue of intermittency aside from the first removal. I'm sorry, but the weather here in Iowa this past weekend brought down power (and consequently Internet pipes) throughout the region. Thousands are still without power. I do apologize for not hosting on mirrored sites across the globe. One pseudo-reported outage does not intermittent make.
 * ...is the page of User:JRStutler... Yep, sure does. See the admission here, in the previous sentence. Your point? ...who keeps linking it Keeps? I did twice. Once when you removed it because you couldn't access the site (see previous bullet), and now, when you removed it again.
 * My point is that this represents a conflict of interest. "Keeps linking" as in "is the only one linking": You are promoting yourself on wikipedia, which is totally inappropriate. To site the explicit policy of wikipedia on linking one's own webpage, see Conflict_of_interest. I'll quote the relevant section for you:"Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', but if you have a conflict of interest, you should exercise great caution. In particular, you... must always avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam)."
 * In comparison with other sites linked in the General Beer Websites section, yours clearly falls short of the precendent established. Until such time as you site improves to that quality, I think that it should not be linked on wikipedia; and when it is, it should be because editors besides those with a vested, personal interest (i.e. those not User:JRStutler) decide to link it.--philosofool 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You view it as self-promotion. I put the link there to share some of the content on the site with the wikiverse. I'm sure I would have far less of a problem with your removal of the link if you had not been an Arrogant Bastard. Your choice of wording in your original removal of the link Removed spammy link to beer-u, a half-working advertisement for community college beer classes. seems contrary to WP:NPOV, and rude. In your next removal, like a Blithering Idiot you simply said Removed beer-u link. It's broken again. Nowhere did you post any explanation of broken or what problems you're running into. Others were able to access the site at approximately the same time you removed the link for being broken (within minutes, in some instances). What a Big Ass. I notice you are, thus far, the only person to complain about this particular resource. Perhaps next time, mindfulness of others would help you avoid Monkey Knife Fights.
 * Admittedly, the site isn't 'complete', but it is growing in content and some have found it useful. Again, if you have useful content you'd care to contribute, I'd be more than happy to peruse it. You're a philosophy student, I could use something on philosophical perspectives of beer, be it historical or contemporary in nature. 'till then, RDWHAHB. averagejoe 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of the sections of the page are incomplete. And many aren't. Just like Wikipedia. Care to contribute to the site? I'm always looking for useful content, just as I share content when possible. I was hoping to have far more on there (and contribute far more here) but I was laid up for a while due to being hit by an alleged drunk driver (see crash) and physical therapy has eaten a bunch of my time since then.
 * Most of the section on the page that are complete of potential interest to people in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. True that, brother. Looking at the site logs and such, many of the more complete sections are of interest to folks in NY, VA, AZ, UK...well, a whole bunch of places. The same can be said of many articles on Wikipedia. The Oatmeal Stout Brownies - Oatmeal Stout Brownies recipe has been well received...and has made Wikimedia Cookbook's Featured Recipe status.
 * Please see links normally to be avoided. Been there, read that. And? There's some unique info on the site. Did I mislead the reader? There's nothing for sale yet on the site, and only one Google ad, so self-promotion and excessive adverts can't be the problems. No payment required, not browser-specific (while it ain't pretty, I've been able to access most content with my cell phone), no external application required. Not a link to search engine results, nor myspace nor blogs nor open wikis. Finally, the content, such as it is, is directly related to the article. That should cover all 13 points there.
 * Granted, it's not the best site in the world (not on my budget, anyway) but there's some useful stuff there and you're the only one bitchin'. Calling the site spammy and a half-working advertisement for community college beer classes was unwarranted, and doesn't encourage folks to participate in the beer project. If you don't like the site, fine. Lots of sites I don't like. You have something positive to contribute, 's all good. Meanwhile, I look forward to contributing more to the article (and project) in the near future and hope we're past this remove/revert loop (which eats up valuable contributing time). Slainte Mhath! averagejoe 02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just not a good site. Sites worth linking to should either be specific references or ones that are the most comprehensive on their topic. Having "some good stuff there" (arguably a debatable assertion as it doesn't register high in the several Google searches I conducted, meaning the internet community as a whole hasn't found it worthwhile yet) isn't sufficient. Thetrick 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sites don't just magically appear at the top of Google searches nor is Google the only search engine. Among other things, it depends on your search terms. The site is relatively new, so that doesn't help, either. The site does turn up quite high with certain search terms, and is growing. The Internet community as a whole will never find anything worthwhile (as a member of that community, there are many many many sites I don't find useful), but I understand your intent. It's not good enough yet. (side note, how many articles on wikipedia are finished and sufficient?) Your point is made (far more gracefully than the previous hack) and taken in good spirit.
 * Philosofool's approach was insulting at the outset and misleading/incorrect after, hence my tongue-in-cheek response above. I proffer my apology for not being clearer in my intent. (Some people's kids...)
 * I'm removing the beer-u link. I thought there was something potentially useful there, but you two don't think so. I won't waste my time and resources sharing with those who don't want them. I'll not waste my time worrying about the wikibeer project, either...not exactly a nurturing environment for newbies. I'll focus instead on my site, where I don't have to put up with rude and insulting edits (remember, it aint' the remove, it's the manner).averagejoe
 * p.s. Spell check is fairly standard on computers these days. Look into them.
 * WP:EL suggests that a link directory like ODP is probably more appropriate. (Try http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Food/Drink/Beer/) . &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving Beer Styles section
This section needs some improvement. Here are problems I'm noticing: I like the emphasis on the difference between ale and lager, in part because that's pretty uncontroversial but also because I think "What's the difference between beer and ale?" is a really common (and really kinda misguided) question, one that I would hope this article helps answer.
 * There's a tendency to downplay beer styles and it sounds sometimes as if the difference between stout and pilsner is insignificant. That's not good. This article should try to emphasize that beer is a genus rather than a species of drink. We don't need to be heavy handed about the significance of styles--a controversial topic--in order to present, for example, Guinness and Miller Genuine Draft as different kinds of beer.
 * The section reads like on of those entries where lots of people have contributed good information without making sure that the information coheres and reads well. For example, it would be good if the section on ales and the section on lagers exhibited parellel structure, so that if one starts out about temperature, then talks about esters, then discusses representative ales/lagers, the other does as well.  And where departure from parallel structure is warranted, good flagging will help. For example, because lager is much newer as a popular style than ale, we know more about the history of lager.  Here, a good move to keep things parallel would be to make the history sections their own paragraphs.
 * The dark and light section seems to me to over emphasize color as a part of beer style. Very different beers can resemble each other in color (British bitter and altbier, for example, or pale IPAs and Pilsners), and I think that this section encourages a common misperception that dark beers are alike

I propose getting rid of the semi-intro on "categorizing by yeast" and simply make this a clear part of ale, lager and lambic, with perhaps one sentence in the lead to avoid redundancy in the sub-sections.

Anyway, all this amounts to slightly vague suggestions for revision, and I'm looking for feedback on other things in this section that need repair and objections to the above (because I don't want to start editing and find myself reverted becaue everyone thinks I'm being done!) --philosofool 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I want to discourage anyone, but I think that if anything is done that this section should be shortened and the discussion taken up in earnest on the beer styles page. One paragraph for each of ale, lager, and lambic, and then an paragraph or two on color that reflects better the flavor and body variations that differing colors reflect.  Thetrick 01:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation by colour is worth mentioning, for one thing, because that is how people who aren't fully paid-up beer wonks think about it (for instance, in the UK, most people tend to think of Guinness and Bitter as two different styles, not as variations on "ale"). 1Z 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename?
Are there objections to renaming the "Beer Styles" section to "Types of Beer"? It seems like this is slightly better, since beer styles mostly implies very specific types like Stout, Porter, Hefe Weizen, Pilsner, etc. wereas "types of beer" implies not only styles, but also ale, lager, lambic--hell, american and british and belgian are types, even if they're pretty uninformative crude ones (that probably don't merit mention in this article). It's a very general term that can be used fo any beer classification. It helps to make this section more dynamic, so that the article can, in a non-ad hoc way, accomodate more information. Certainly, this section should still link to beer styles and should include a discussion of styles fairly prominently (but without undue emphasis).

Awaiting thoughts of fellow editors. —philosofool 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the phrase beer styles should be kept as that is the currently accepted term for discussing what currently qualifies as beer. I understand what you are trying to get at, but ales, lagers, and lambics have as wide a range within each type/kind as they do between them.  Perhaps Classifying beer?  Describing beer?  Thetrick 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Varieties of beer? Thetrick 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of these suggestions, I like Varieties of Beer best, Classifications of Beer I like better than describing beer, because "describing beer" makes it sound like this section is on sentence like "A medium-full bodied beer that still finishes clean and dry" or "herbal and spicy aromatics with just a hint of fruity esters". That is definitely not what this section is about.


 * But maybe I should try to make my point this way (because I'm not sure I was clear above): Ale isn't a style and Lager isn't a style; this whole section is about ale, lager and lambic, not about styles of beer, so it seems like the name should be changed. --philosofool 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is still interest in this, but I agree completely that beer style needs to be changed. In Dutch and German, it is called beer sort or beer type. Since these are two great beer areas, they would have experience with this. "Style" seems to have rigid requirements (like a style-guide), while sort or type is more open. I hope there is still interest in this. Mikebe 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Better Hops Picture
While it is interesting seeing old brown hops for a lambic, it hardly should be the image of hops for beer in general. Picture of Fresh green hops would be more appropriate.

Moderation in all things
The article says drinking a moderate amount of beer is healthy. How much is a moderate amount? Thanks for all help given! Jecowa 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A recent study I saw defined moderate consumption as 2-4 beers a day for men, 1-2 beers a day for women. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 75.21.17.68 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be a bit more precise, the article that Wrathchild refers to says 2-4 or 1-2 "drinks" per day, not beers... it may not be true that drinking only beer would be the same as drinking a variety of kinds drinks, and in particular I would suspect that the Italian drinkers in this study might have included a fair bit of wine in their diet. It might also be worth considering that the same article also says the US standard is 2 or 1 drinks per day, i.e. at the low end of the ranges in the Italian study. Brianlucas 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Skunk up?
Can someone explain the process of how beer goes rancid/skunks/goes bad? (similar to how wine becomes vinegar) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.88.69.227 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-10/uonc-ucf101701.php


 * Skunky beer is caused by visible or UV light interacting with certain flavor chemicals from the hops. This is why you should store beer in the dark!


 * It is a very different reaction from vinegar production. Skunky beer is the decomposition of isohumulones under light, while vinegar production is the fermentation of alcohol by mother of vinegar, a yeast/bacteria slime. --FOo 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Beer and humanity's ability to develop technology? NPOV
62.63.37.160 posted the following addition in the "Beer and society" section on 20 April: "Beer is also sometimes attributed to humanity's ability to develop technology" with a link to a Scientific American article. I deleted the comment, and 62.63.37.160 responded on my talk page asking to discuss it, so I thought we'd best do that here. I think the statement should not be included in this article because what the professor quoted in the Scientific American article said about people becoming farmers in villages, towns, and cities is usually attributed to the invention of agriculture in general, not specifically to the invention of beer. I also think that the Scientific American article is not a good source to cite, because "Antigravity" is their monthly humour column. Brianlucas 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an accepted theory that a number of notable beer writers such as Michael Jackson and Roger Protz have used as part of introductions in various books they have written. It's not a controversial theory. I'm surprised we haven't included that theory in this article previously. Thanks for the note - I'll include it now. SilkTork 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a statement that would need to be backed by the scientific community and not notable beer writers or employees of brewers. What qualifications or refs do they have to make such statements? If the refs could give insight to the qualifications (other than being an author), that would help with the credibility of the statement. As much as I would like it to be true, without credible sources, it’s POV.-- I already forgot  talk  22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brianlucas - this makes the article look farcical, particularly as this segment is in the opening sentences. If it needs to be included, it should be in a seperate section in the main body. Vert 11:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added an NPOV header to the intro, I believe the comments re: civilization etc conflict with NPOV under the "Undue weight" heading in that guide. I don't believe the majority view is that beer was the driver of development of human civilization. That view isn't even stated. Vert 11:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others that this is ludicrous. The article quotes this "theory" to "Charlie Bamforth, Anheuser-Busch Endowed Professor of Brewing Science at the University of California." He quotes this man saying: "Because before beer was discovered, people used to wander around and follow goats from place to place. And then they realized that this grain [barley] could be grown and sprouted and made into a bread and crumbled and converted into a liquid which gave a nice, warm, cozy feeling..." Bamforth has a background in microbiology (http://foodscience.ucdavis.edu/bamforth/whoAmI.html). How on earth does that qualify him to make sociological comments about beer and civilisation? Yes, it's quite amusing, but then it should be labelled as humour, not as fact. Mikebe 11:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the offending wording has been changed, and moved out of the intro into the history section, I believe we can remove the NPOV tag. --Xorkl000 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out the bit that says that beer was made prior to bread, partly because the way the sentence was constructed made it sounds like bread is a beverage, and partly because the statement made was not supported by the referenced Britannica article, which says that barley was "crushed, mixed with water, and dried into cakes" and then the cakes were used to make the beer. I think this shows that bread came before beer. Brianlucas 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As for beer being responsible for civilization, I still think that's a ludicrous statement and at the very least a questionable cause-and-effect relationship. I also note that all of the referenced articles actually argue that the making of bread and beer from grain is responsible for civilisation. Although as others have said above, on this point we should be referencing anthropologists and archaeologists, not brewers and beer critics. So I'm going to change the sentence to reflect what the references actually say -- although I think the statement should be removed entirely. Brianlucas 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations 6 7 8 are not serious. Didanyone actually read this or what? Beer is no responsible for civilization. Some idiot high school kid wrote that. The UCDavis Prof was joking. This article i terrible and written by a bunch of kids. 72.235.251.198 21:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what individuals personally think of it. It is a widely accepted theory on beer. The article cites three independent sources. It would be inappropriate to suppress that theory from the article. If someone can find an opposing view, then that should also appear in the article to give a balance. But the theory, which is quoted by several leading beer authorities, including Roger Protz, is interesting, and, if true, gives some background to the history of beer, and its potential importance in mankind's development. But regardless of its truth, its widespread dissemination within beer literature demands that it is at least mentioned in the article. SilkTork 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about the origins of civilisation, we need evidence from the fields of anthropology and archaeology. Not from brewers and beer critics, not from humour columns, and not from book reviews of beer catalogues.  Beer is a product of civilisation; civilisation is not a product of beer.


 * The "Midwife of Civilization" article (http://www.aina.org/ata/20060827151956.htm) actually does not support the statement that it is being used as a reference for. It clearly says that the Sumerians had to learn to bake bread before they could brew beer.  In fact, it suggests that beer might have been invented thus: "A forgetful Sumerian baker--probably the lady of the house or her maid--might have left her dough out... perhaps, a Sumerian family sat down for a bowl of bread dunked in water... perhaps a few days later, the bowls of gruel were still on the table."  Clearly the author of the article postulates that civilisation existed, with growing grain, baking bread, maids, and tables, before beer was discovered.  So that reference actually says civilisation first, beer second.


 * The other two references are a humour article quoting a professor who is clearly joking (let's try quoting his insight on the nature of sin over on the Sin page and see what happens, shall we?) and a book review quoting a beer guide, which is not an authoritative reference on anthropology.


 * I perceive that most contributors here agree that the sentence should be removed, so I have done so. Brianlucas 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the comment should be removed, I have thought so since it was introduced. It seems SilkTork is the only person who thinks it belongs here. Vert 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that SilkTork reintroduced the "beer is responsible for civilisation" comment in an edit on 14 September. I repeat that one of the references supplied clearly states the opposite, i.e. that civilisation existed before beer did, and the other two references are clearly humorous in their intent. SilkTork, I don't dispute that beer has been around since the dawn of civilisation, but beer cannot have been a cause of civilisation, because you need to be fairly civilised before you can brew beer. I've removed the "cause of civilisation" statement from the article again. Brianlucas 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Small introduction wording change
I'm not sure that 'the starch source is steeped in water' is quite specific enough. There needs to be something about how the starch is converted to sugars prior to fermentation in the intro. Remember that many people won't get past the introduction and at the moment it is misleading (suggesting that starch is fermentable). I'm going to change it. Feel free to revert it if I have offended anyone. 163.1.143.187 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sake

 * Alcoholic beverages fermented from non starch sources such as grape juice (wine) or honey (mead), and distilled beverages are not classified as beer.

Sake is fermented from a starch source (rice), isn't it? So is it a kind of beer according to this article? Marnanel 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - sake is technically a beer. And that is supported by all the leading encyclopedias:. SilkTork 23:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cans vs Bottles
As often happens, an absolute statement jumped out at me:

flavour stability and freshness of filtered beer is the same for canned and bottled products

So I checked the footnote #22, and it is contradictory:

''The various lubricants, coatings and paints used to produce and seal the can are potential sources of off-flavor. While these elements rarely impact canned beer, they require careful monitoring and quality control on the part of the brewer.''

Broodlinger 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted that section slightly, and placed the relevant part of the source into the footnote. I think the finer details of the discussion, especially as they "rarely impact canned beer", are best saved for the Beverage can article. SilkTork 12:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

oldest alcoholic beverage
I am unconvinced that beer is definitively world's oldest alcoholic beverage. It seems that mead or naturally fermented juice would have been developed earlier than beer, which is more complex in even the most basic manufacture. Wine can be made essentially by leaving out juice too long. -Superbeecat 01:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a tricky subject, and more research could be done. A good number of beer books will cite the academic sources for beer being the oldest beverage, and so that has become the accepted norm. However, there's reasons why wine would be unlikely due to lack of agricultural evidence for the right sorts of fruit, and for the difficulty of fruit fermenting in a drinkable manner (ie, not becoming vinegar). Available evidence from pottery remains in Middle East show that beer was being made long before any other alcoholic beverage. I think there's some new, but unproven evidence from China that may indicate that some fruits were used to flavour rice beer way back before the beer evidence in the Middle East. But as the main sugar source was cereal (rice), that is still beer. If you can find good sources that show any other beverage being older than beer, please present it here. SilkTork 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Carbonated
In the introduction it states that beer is carbonated, but surely there are several types which are not? Unusual Cheese 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak as a scientist on this, but it has been my impression that beer does not have to be kept under pressure in order to retain a certain small amount of the fermentation-produced carbon dioxide, even when it's "flat." I could be wrong about this, but every time I bottle my flat, unpressurized homebrew (in order to carbonate it), I'm awestruck by how much carbon dioxide is already in solution. Dunkelweizen 12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several types which are not artificially carbonated. 1Z 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it does say that beer is carbonated in the introduction. However, it is true that most beer is carbonated, either naturally or through force-carbonation. Though not all beer is noticeably carbonated. There is a small mention of carbonation in the brewing section.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a featured article to me.
I don't really understand the whole process, but this article strikes me as comprehensive, well-written, and well referenced. Whatever problems existed previously have been taken care of. Somebody should make the nomination, I think. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First we need to get through the Good article nomination process. In order to pass that, we need to work on the citation templates, and certain sections need more references. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some sections - like History - need more attention. There's no rush. The article is growing, but it's still some way from being a FA.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE, etc.
I've seen a few edit skirmishes now on BC vs. BCE, one of which ended with User:RepublicanJacobite noting that BCE and CE are the preferred terms. This is fine by me, but I just want to make sure that this is true or somehow verifiable. Dunkelweizen 12:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be correct. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In academic circles, I do not believe there is any debate on the issue. CE/BCE are the preferred terms. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for political correctness. BC and AD are the terms that have been used historically for hundreds of years. We need not censor this factGee Emm Christlur 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This hasn't anything to do with political correctness. Check your facts before you go running off at the mouth.  The commonly-accepted terminology in academia is BCE/CE.  That is a fact, sir. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, CE/BCE are relatively recent terms. However, they're widely accepted in academic circles unless you're discussing religion or related topics. Also, from the MOS: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't BC used first in this article? I believe someone changed it to BCE...if so it must be changed back according to the MOS Gee Emm Christlur 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. There is a clear consensus for the use of CE/BCE on this article (based upon its use in academia), and that's the way it's going to stay. The MOS simply states that you shouldn't change it without a good reason to. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the point. MOS states that BOTH are acceptable within Wikipedia, regardless of "academia standard". The public by far uses AD/BC, so why isn't that of importance? Academia usage does not rule Wikipedia...and you've still provided no proof of widespread academic usage Gee Emm Christlur 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy that this discussion has taken place. The consensus seems to favor BCE/CE. Gee Emm Christlur, your allegation of "political correctness" seems to suggest that the use of "BCE" and "CE" is motivated by a desire to avoid offense at the expense of truth. This is not what is happening here. As names for times, the two terms are essentially synonymous, and the consensus-preferred term for this article avoids dragging Jesus's name around to place beer-historical events on a timeline. What, to some, is "PC," is often simple politeness to others. As for the widespread academic usage of "CE," a good bit of thumbing around in a university library should satisfy your curiosity. You might also read the Wikipedia article Common Era, under "Usage." Dunkelweizen 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

♣ Academic circles typically are bastions of PCness, so conventional wisdom here does not necessarily indicate scholarly motives.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion, now isn't it? And who said anything about conventional wisdom?  We are talking about consensus amongst editors.  It has naught to do with political correctness. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as your words are your opinion. The use is only about 250 years old.  So it is the consensus now, but not always.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 00:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To-Do List
Is there a To-Do list for this article or project?-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but I suppose one could be added. The primary problems with this article, as far as I can tell, have to do with lack of references in certain sections and poor formatting of existing references, a task I've been working on. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question
WHY IS THIS PAGE LOCKED????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can see the page's log. Deli nk (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been semi-protected due to vandalism. Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old. See Protection policy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandals were busy today.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 03:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection expired. Figures. If it persists, we can re-request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of the persistent vandalism, semi-protection re-requested. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 December 2007
 * Detranscluded as Pensil didn't request a specific edit along with his use of editprotected. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)