Talk:Beer/Archive 4

Best Beer I ever had
While serving in the U.S. Army I had the pleasure to unexpetedly meet-up with some German coalition troops who were slick enough to manage to sneak some of their hometown brewed beer with them into the desert. The Beer that they shared with us that night in our little lp/op was the best beer that I ever had, in-fact, I generally don't like the taste of beer, the bitterness of the hops in particular, but this beer was so smooth and malty and sweet that it almost didn't even seem like beer; it was dark (and packed a wallop!) and the German troops would roll the bottles on the ground to distribute the sediments that were in the beer before sharing it with us (which was also new to me because all beer that I had prior to this time was American mass produced filtered stuff like Coors or Bud). I have never been able to find this beer again and would love to know what kind it was and where to get it, unfortunately, my buddies and I have forgoten where our German friends said that they were from in Germany and have no way to know who they were or how to contact them. I hope that all of those fine German soldiers have all returned home and are now enjoying a peacefull life with their families and their fine brew; they lifted my team's moral and gave my buddies and I a fine memory in an otherwise dark time of our lives and history. If you might know what kind of beer this might be I would be very greatful to know. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.135 (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I added a category for 'Beer places' with redirect to 'drinking establishments'. A Google search of 'beer places' brings up quite a few related items.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorising by yeast
Is it really right to call top-fermenting yeasts ale and direct it to the ale-article? Isn't for example Porter and Stout types of top fermenting beers? Or are they types of ales? (I'm asking because I'm working on the swedish beerarticle and in svwp we have both ale-, lager- and lambic-articles and the articles top-fermentation, bottom-fermentation and spontaneous fermentation...) Thanx! SvSuz (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. After reading the ale article on Wikipedia, I had always believed ale to mean a beer made with top-fermenting yeast, but now that you mention it, the statement isn't sourced, neither Oxford or Webster mention yeast when defining "ale". Oxford - "a type of beer with a bitter flavor and higher alcoholic content : amber-colored beers, ales, and stouts." Webster - "an alcoholic beverage brewed especially by rapid fermentation from an infusion of malt with the addition of hops."
 * Concerning porters and stouts, these beers can be made with either top-fermenting or bottom-fermenting yeast, according to their Wikipedia articles. Jecowa (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In my years as a certified beer judge, I have perused multiple resources for beer style characteristics and all the authoritative sources I have seen describe all stouts and all but a few porters (mostly derived from fairly recent Eastern- and Central-European tradition) as top-fermented. For one resource please see the Beer Judge Certification Program's site http://www.bjcp.org/index.php and click on Style Guidelines for the updated 2008 descriptions. Scalasaig (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. There are plenty of examples from around the world of bottom-fermented Porters and Stouts. Van Vollenhoven's Stout was bottom-fermented by Heineken for 60 years. Dragon Stout in Jamaica, Carbine Stout from Australia and Castle Milk Stout from South Africa are all bottom-fermented. In Denmark almost all Porters and Stouts from established breweries - Calrsberg, Tuborg, etc - are bottom-fermented. And before you say that these are Baltic Porters, try looking on some of the labels - many have both Porter and Stout (or Stowt) on them. I don't want to sound nasty, but there seems to have been very little research from primary sources involved in compiling the bjcp guidelines. Which is why they are of so little use in describing European beer styles and their history. I wouldn't use the bjcp definitions as a reference for anything because they are so deeply flawed.Patto1ro (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Patto1ro. The BJCP guidelines, useful though they may be to American homebrewers, tend to be misleading with regard to European kinds of beer.  In central Europe, there is a porter heritage that not many American and British beer lovers are aware of.  To the porters Patto1ro mentioned, I would add Hoefpner Porter.  Dunkelweizen (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Language & spelling
A recent edit 'corrected' the spelling of liter/litre. It was already correct...or not, depending on the dictionary used. What is the standard language/dialect here? I've noticed throughout the site that some articles use 'color' while others use 'colour'. An argument could be made for American English as Wikipedia started in the U.S. by Americans, but I'm fine either way. I don't want to get into edit wars with our friends across the pond (any pond)...is there any consensus on this? --averagejoe (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Commonwealth English and American English spellings are accepted on Wikipedia. There are some guidelines on this. An article can use either American English or Commonwealth English spelling, but not both. So the words "liter" and "centre" should not be in the same article; one must be switched to comply under one of the English spelling rules. To determine which variant of English spelling should be applied in an article, it should be considered which region of the world the subject of the article is more related to. an article on European Union institutions should use Commonwealth English, while an article on the American Civil War should use American English. In the event that the subject is not related to any country much more than another, then the spelling rules used in an article should be those that were first used when the article was created. Going back to the earliest page of the beer article's page history, it appears that the original edit no longer exists in the page history. Hmm, that's very interesting. Does anyone know why all edits to this page before December 13 2001 are missing? Jecowa (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has been in Commonwealth English for as far back as we can go. Sometimes people add a word using American English, or will change the spelling of a few words to American English, but this is usually changed back to Commonwealth English. Older histories on some articles have been lost. However, out of interest I think that Jimbo started the beer article. I know he started the Real ale article.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 10:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ♠ What this all means is that when you edit this page, you must hold your pinky out from your mouse (as when holding a wine glass).-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My questions is this; Is the spelling of words like organization and specialization different in commonwealth English?(don't take offense, i'm a baka american), if not can i go ahead and fix the spelling errors? Killemall22 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. In British English organisation is spelt with an 's', so is organise, specialisation, etc... Cleroth (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongest Beer in the World
The strongest Beer in the world was draughed at the Vetter 33 (German for Cousin 33) by Brewmaster Rudolf J. Kasper von Vetters in Heidelburg, Germany. It had a 33.19% alcohol content by weight and alcohol content by volume of 37.91%. It is registered in the 1994 Guinness Book Of World Records. This can be verified by reading the 1994 book or by checking the vetter home page http://www.brauhaus-vetter.de/html/unser_bier.html under the tab "unser bier"

64.191.223.5 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vetter 33 is actually 10.5% abv. The 33 comes from the Plato scale. East European brewers still use the Plato scale - a good approximation is that 1° Plato is worth 4 "brewers points" (the thousandths' part of the SG measurement), so 12° Plato corresponds to an original gravity of 1.048 (12 x 4 = 48) which equals about 4.8% abv. The brewery is still playing on its reputation (and misunderstanding of the degrees Plato) as the world's strongest beer, but we have the truth here.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Request
I think someone should upload a photo of beer in a bottle, instead of only glasses, kegs, and steins. Bottles are quite common in, at very least, North America. Agree? Disagree? --Tkgd2007 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ♠ Go for it dude! -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

beer and civilization
the Urine of Yeast, a mild poison that allows the human mind to put out the lights of the nagging nasty judgemental voice that sits just behind the back of the fun centers of the brain...allowing the fun centers to take over the body for a short amount of time until all the lights are put out. Without beer and other alcoholic drink, civilization as we know it would have likely never come to be, as a stable drinking supply free of deadly bacteria to sustain a large population. The caanite god El, whose name became a generic hebrew word for all gods may indicate an origin relating to beer as the name spelled Aleph Lamed is pronounced exactly as a dry heave. My theory is that on the night of the first drunken orgy, mankind blessed the gods for giving them the ability to see heaven and somewhere towards the end started vomitting uncontrollably and realized they were not worthy. Jiohdi (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...uh, watever you think pal.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Beer drinking etiquette
Maybe something should be said about customs/etiquette... such as drinking light beers before dark, etc.? Bigpeteb (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beer fan sites vs. encyclopedia
We have discussed this before (several times) and there is simply no justification for using commercial fan sites that themselves describe their "style guide" as: "Note: This is not the bible for beer styles, but should be viewed as a work-in-progress and a fun reference that's open to change and interpretation." Yes, "fun reference" is certainly something we should be quoting here... if this was "Scott's Book of Funny and Unusual Facts". I just thought someone needed the reminder. Mikebe (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EL. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:EL: "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate". Case closed. Have a nice day. Mikebe (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Charming as always. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Violating WP rules as always.Mikebe (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

it seems to me that maybe someone focused on the use of the word could instead of accurate i'm sure it was an honest mistakeKillemall22 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dating system
After some substantial research of the article history the B.C./A.D. fans are correct, much to my chagrin. The first usage of any of B.C., A.D., BCE, or CE is here. My apologies for reverting, would help if other people used a meaningful edit summary when changing such things.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Expired beer?
does beer expire, i know that theres a best before of 110 days, but if i drank beer from say, 2002, would i feel any effects?--82.9.21.247 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most beers are meant to be consumed when fresh. The flavor may not be as good later, but it should still be safe to drink.  The alcohol won't magically disappear, if that's what you're asking.  Also, this page is for talking about the article beer, not for talking about beer itself.  Factual questions could be asked over at Reference desk. Friday (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if we have sources for it, why not include it in the article? Beer certainly does degrade over time, depending on conditions.  If exposed to light, it can become skunked or light-struck, giving it a foul flavor.   Beer can also become oxidized over time, giving it a flat, off flavor.  Some bottle-conditioned beers, however, are intended to age and develop a better flavor over time -- these are "cellarable" beers.   --FOo (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Beer and health
Specific health issues caused by beer and not associated with alcohol are entirely missing like the hormonic influence (estrogen-like action), the influence of zymosis products on the function of kidney and expecially liver. The "beer alcoholism" phenomenon with its specific traits isn't mentioned as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.49.52 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin o f a name
something is there http://www.beerhunter.com/documents/19133-001511.html. ( => barley, cereal, Ceres ... ) ca1 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

idea on section
could section on how to (quickly) reduce effect of beer be there;) ? 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pour it down the drain?--Yumegusa (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so that section should not be added.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Calories?
The best kept secret ... caloric content of beers. The article mentions "lite" beers have less, but how much is that? --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most beers are (despite common belief) relativley low in calories. Even Guinness, said to be a "meal in a glass", contains fewer calories per serving than an equal-sized serving of skim milk. Well-known American lagers like Budweiser and Miller would have even fewer calories.--Metalhead94 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And Budweiser is one of the most popular beers in the United States. Don't forget the ABV too! -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, Budweiser is 5% ABV, but I know you already knew that.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tidying up the article so it can be nominated for a GA
I'm placing the criteria guidelines here so they can be checked off.

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).

Comments
1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I've loosely noted where it appears the article meets the criteria, where it still needs checking, and where it appears the article is failing. There is possibly some original research in the article, and that needs examining more closely than the other aspects. Some aspects - like checking the status of the images shouldn't be too difficult to check.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Images checked - all fine.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Brewing section needs simplifying and reducing. It's too technical and specialised - it fails 3(b).  SilkTork  *YES! 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose is clear and spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is a bit dull is places, but it is clear. The brewing section still needs cutting down.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost clear for 1(b) - just needs the brewing section to be tidied up.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most areas are now referenced. Contentious statements have been cleared if references couldn't be found. What remains is reasonably obvious and uncontested, or has balancing statements.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The last section has now been cleared. The brewing section has been simplified and jargon removed and/or explained, and it has been appropriately and fully referenced. I have trimmed it back somewhat, as it should just be a summary, and the brewing article itself can go into more technical detail. I feel the article is now ready to be submitted for assessment.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Brewing
Some of the recent edits to the brewing section, particularly those about stages of brewing, seem to be taking the article in the wrong direction. It is getting less, rather than more clear. I do very much like the new introduction, but I think that the previous item-by-item description was better than the current more narrative approach regarding the stages of brewing. I like the section about brewing in this version of the article better than the current one. philosofool (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you are saying, and the brewing section has been the most problematic of the whole article. I looked at the criteria for a Good Article and it does ask us to "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", and to pay attention to Explain jargon. This article is not about brewing, it's about beer, so it seems appropriate to just summarise the brewing process and to make it as easy to understand as possible. The place for more detailed technical explanation of the brewing process is the brewing article itself. Though I take your point about the tea analogy - perhaps a bit too simple!  SilkTork  *YES! 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think that one of the merits of the old section was that it was easy to see how it was organized, so that a reader tell how to skip it. It dedicated 100-200 words to each of five stages of beer manufacture, which seems like not too much. Moreover, it was compartmentalized well, so that it was a stand-alone section. The article on brewing is a total mess--much to big to be helpful for the person interested in a digest version. But I think that you are right that brewing is perhaps a little too long and jargon laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosofool (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the difficulties produced by the old section was that it was compartmentalized. Not all brewing follows those stages. In my rewrite I found I was forced to deal with modern Westernised bulk brewing and was unable to show the variety of craft, ethnic and traditional brewing - no lambic, Yorkshire square, or African brewing for example. I'd still like to have another stab at it later to try to introduce notions of greater flexibility to include the many varieties of brewing. As I was reworking it I was wondering if the section should in fact be changed to have a wider overview of brewing, and then go into modern commercial Westernised brewery brewing as an example of one method.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This to me falls under the category of things where the topic should be about the process as it occurs the majority of the time with simple caveats that there are other means of achieving similar results. With all due respect to Luxembourg, an article on European history that gave Luxembourg equal weight as it gave to France, Spain and Germany would simply not weight the actual history in an appropriate way. Similarly, trying to cover those ways of brewing that represent clear minority practices, especially for those beverages that are called "beer" because when English speakers came into contact, that was the best word we could find for them, weighs actual practice incorrectly. (The fact is that for about 400 years, there is no notable use of "beer" to talk about anything that isn't a fermented beverage flavored with hops and made mostly with barley. Extensions of "beer" to cover unhopped beverages and beverages that include no barley are just as easily seen as neologism as part of a prior meaning of "beer.") philosofool (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I totally agree that the main aspects of the section should be about the most common practise. Where my quibble comes in is that it should not be presented as the ONLY process, and the fixed bold headings gave the appearance that the process as displayed was an absolute fixed process, step by step. My intention is to make reference to the variety of methods in a comprehensive encyclopedic manner without any undue bias, though making people aware that the main methods (there is more than one main method!) might follow a certain progress. I had not envisaged giving lambic or kvass brewing equal space, and I appologise if what I wrote gave that alarming impression. I think we are largely in accord as to how the brewing section should appear. Where we might be departing, is in allowing a space within the Beer article as a whole for the greater varieties of beer both historically and globally, as some of your comments hint that you'd prefer the article to focus on one form of beer - the most common now produced. The difficulty with that approach is where exactly do we draw the line (stick with pale lager, for example, as the type most produced around the world) - and even if we do draw the line at a certain variety, it might still be appropriate to make reference to other variations. It's a tricky thing, but it appears to me that the more encyclopedic approach would be to make readers aware of the variations, while having the main thrust of the article on the main varieties. My feeling is that we have the balance about right at the moment, though it would be appropriate to raise concerns and re-examine the article. Do you find it currently unbalanced?  SilkTork  *YES! 11:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes in introduction
In the introduction it says-"The basics of brewing beer are shared across national and cultural boundaries, and are commonly categorised into two main types - the globally popular pale lagers and the regionally distinct ales which are further categorised into other varieties such as pale ale, stout and brown ale". Stout is not an ale. Also, it only mentions pale lager in comparison to ales, there are many types of lager. Another thing, it seems to imply that ales are the only beers that can be regionally brewed. This is also untrue, there are many regional lagers around the world. Either this sentence needs some serious rewording, or I'm going to remove it.--Metalhead94 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut and reworded sentence to "The basics of brewing beer are widely known across national and cultural boundaries".--Metalhead94 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone please explain why the aforementioned mistakes have been edited back into the article? If I do not get a quick, rational response, I will delete it again.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots of things wrong with that sentence, I agree. However, stout is ale. philosofool (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, stout is an ale. And the main beer globally is pale lager. The sentence is a summary of the introducion to the Beer section. It certainly needs more cites, and indeed, other sections of the article need more cites as per the GA review. I am setting about that, however extra assistance in getting more references would be really appreciated! One method of getting references is to put in key words or phrases into google and see what pops up. varities of beer for example. I's then a quuestion of loking through the links to see if any are useful! Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 11:34, 29

September 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at Beer and the second sentence reads: "Local traditions, however, will give beers different names, giving the impression of a multitude of different styles." This seems to me to be complete nonsense! I will remove it and if anyone has something sensible to say in its place, please add it. Mikebe (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. The problem comes because the sentence is trying to contract down into a few words the notion that "Kentish Ale" is no different to "Cornish Ale" and "Welsh Beer" is no different to "English Beer", etc. But the information does needs reworking and some reliable cites. Thanks for pointing that out.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Beer Bottles
We need to have a picture of a beer bottle in one of the sections. I'll upload one soon. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you get a bottle added to the article? I don't see one.  If you're looking for some good pictures of beer bottles, check out the article on Spoetzl Brewery, I've got several beer bottle pictures there that might work.  --Brownings (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice images. I've put one in - replacing the quirky Image:Kannenbeer-.jpg, which I kinda liked, but really wasn't that relevant.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I'll find one as soon as I can. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 05:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Varieties
It seems the introduction of this section is an opportunity that, until now, has been missed. I suspect the vast majority of our readers will find this question more interesting and relevant than a discussion, for example, of "clarifying agents." As it stands now, there is a throw-away line about different beers in different countries, then the lager vs. ale system of classification is mentioned. We then go to Michael Jackson and his classification system, with no discussion, and finally we end on a second bit about lager vs. ale, but at a technical level.

Certainly there can be more said about this. I will attempt to clean this up and expand it. Mikebe (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"A 2005 Japanese study found that low alcohol beer may possess strong anti-godzilla properties." - I have to admit, I got a good laugh out of this before editing it. 75.61.11.254 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, someone snuck that in a few days ago, and a few editors (including myself) never noticed. Good catch. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this section should be introduced. It would be much recommended. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 04:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Strength
The article states that in some rare cases, beer may be up to 20%abv, and later states:

"Since then, some brewers have used champagne yeasts to increase the alcohol content of their beers. Samuel Adams reached 20% abv with Millennium[83] and then surpassed that amount to 25.6% abv with Utopias. The strongest beer sold in Britain was Delaware's Dogfish Head's World Wide Stout, a 21% abv stout which was available from UK Safeways in 2003.[84] In Japan in 2005, the Hakusekikan Beer Restaurant sold an eisbock, strengthened through freeze distillation, believed to be 28% abv.[85] The beer that is considered to be the strongest yet made is Hair of the Dog's Dave—a 29% abv barley wine made in 1994. The strength was achieved by freeze distilling a 10% ale twice.[86]"

The question is, can freeze-distilled alcoholic products be considered beer? Consider common-sense understandings of the product and its manufacture, as well as the description provided in this article, I'd suggest not. You may as well call whiskey 'beer'.86.1.196.156 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole point of a high-proof beer is that the drink is, being beer, still created through natural means (no distillation involved, which would make it liquor). For this reason, Sam Adams' Utopias is the beer with the highest alcohol content. Thomasmallen (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To split hairs: it's the highest alcohol non-distilled beverage of any kind. – ClockworkSoul 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's something I've often considered. But all reliable sources and general accepted consensus is that eisbock is a legitimate beer. It's not our place to have an opinion, simply to report what's out there. For what it's worth, my personal feeling is that a malt based product that has been freeze distilled is no longer beer, but my personal feelings don't count for much in the creation of a Wikipedia article. We can't fly in the face of over 100 years of tradition. Inquiring minds will make of the freeze distilling comment in the article what they will - and that is good and healthy. I don't think we need to spell it out. I'll remove the tag from the lead, as the statement is explained later with sources.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to be technical, "freeze distillation", though being analogous in name, isn't actually a distillation, which by definition involves boiling and and separation according to differences in the volatilities of the constituent liquids. Really, it's a recrystallization, and while both processes increase the overall alcohol concentration, the effects on the product are very different. – ClockworkSoul 22:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)