Talk:Gruit

The first part of this article is copied directly from the book Sacred and Herbal Healing Beers by Stephen Harrod Buhner. It comes from page 169 in my copy. This is plagerism at its worst. The book is not even cited. I don't have time to fix it but it should be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.10.165 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 5 December 2005.
 * Plagiarism and other copyright violations must be removed, but can you be a little more specific? Melchoir 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

the above-mentioned paragraph in Buhner reads: "Gruit (or sometimes grut) was, primarily, a combination of three mild to moderately narcotic herbs: sweet gale (Myrica gale), also called bog myrtle, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and wild rosemary (Ledum palustre), also called marsh rosemary. Gruit varied somewhat, each gruit producer additin additional herbs to produce unique tastes, flavors, and effects.  Other adjunct herbs were juniper berries, ginger, caraway seed, aniseed, nutmeg, and cinnamon (most, themselves, having psychotropic properties).  The exact formula for each gruit was, like Coca Cola, proprietary--a closely guarded secret." As noted, it is largely copied word for word.

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) 04:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

American vs. non-American spelling
Before I edited this article some 12 hours ago, there was a mixture of American and non-American spelling used. I believed I was bringing it into line with WP:ENGVAR by (1)making it consistent, and (2)choosing non-American spelling because the article chiefly deals with the subject in the context of British and European history. Obviously consistency is the most important element, but I am at a loss to understand why the spelling has now been switched to American, when there is scarcely any reference to America in the article. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When I did my first WP:ENGVAR edit on this article last December, I did miss the word "favour", so the article was still not fully consistent. At that time (and currently) I found no reference at all to the UK (being a European article has no bearing on WP:ENGVAR since other European countries do not use English as their primary langauge).  The article was originally started in American English, so that is the language it should remain in unless there is good reason to consider it a British topic. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously without digging through the history no-one would have any idea what flavor of English was used in the beginning, but your explanation is adequate for what might appear to the casual observer to be rather bizarre behavior. You are wrong however in two details: Great Britain is currently mentioned twice in the text, and it is not the only European country to use English as a primary language. --Yumegusa (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was wrong about the current state of the article as far as the UK being mentioned; I should know better than to depend on my memory and a quick look. In any case, the article very clearly started in American English and very clearly was destubbed at 10:57, December 30, 2005 in American English, so per WP:ENGVAR this article should be in American English unless it "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation".  Does it have a strong tie "to a particular English-speaking nation"?  Does it have a "strong" tie to a "particular" European country which uses British English as its PRIMARY (not A primary) language? VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I already said you were right. No need to flog the donkey! However, now that you raise it, you say 'very clearly' twice, but what you mean is 'very clearly if you feel like digging through the history'. In any case, having so dug, I see that the original article was so riddled with spelling errors, that its two cases of explicitly American spelling could quite easily have been just more errors :) 'Nuff said, I hope. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood your previous response. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
Why was the etymology I added removed? Gruit is an alternate spelling of grout, and that's useful information. It's not "POV," for Pete's sake. Languagehat (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

--Yumegusa (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the info removed was incorrect and/or misleading. When I get back from travelling (at the weekend) I'll post a more thorough justification.


 * It was from the OED, which is the gold standard of English etymology. Unless you're an etymologist, the fact that you don't like an etymology doesn't trump the dictionary.  I'll wait to see your justification, but unless it's very convincing I'm going to add the etymology again, sourced to the OED. Languagehat (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The text in question states that gruit and grut are "alternate spellings of grout "coarse meal, peeled grain"". The removal was based on two grounds, viz. A. Factually incorrect: to be 'alternate spellings' two forms must (i) be pronounced identically, and (ii) have identical meanings (e.g. jail/gaol); otherwise they are not alternate spellings of one word, they are two words. In fact, 'gruit' and 'grout' share neither pronunciation nor meaning, only a common ancestry, but so do 'cordial' and 'cardiac', and you would hardly claim they are alternate spellings of one word! B. Irrelevant: WP is an encyclopedia not an etymological dictionary. The fact that the word for a herbal mixture used in brewing shares its ancestry with another word meaning husked wheat or oats adds nothing of use to a reader wanting to know about the former.

--Yumegusa (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps B is arguable, but A is not.


 * Depending on the era, 'gruit' and 'grout' could have been homophones, so A is arguable. I think etymologies are useful if they expand on other aspects of the article, but that is not the case here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

--Yumegusa (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The text in question does not couch itself in the past, neither does the possibility of grout and gruit being homophones at some point in the past make A arguable, since if the meanings are different we are dealing with two different words here, not one. I do agree with Curtis about etymologies being useful where they touch on other aspects; compare Tea


 * Gruit, grut, gruyt is a cognate to still-in-use German sg. Kraut (herb), pl. Kräuter ("croyter", herbs) -- bare IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.87.251 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation of gruit and gruyt in Dutch sounds like grout to English ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.108.42 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If grut is an alternate spelling of gruit, then Merriam-Webster supports the idea that gruit is an alternate of grout. Merriam-Webster's etymology of grout is [ME, coarse meal, fr. OE grūt; akin to OE grēot grit]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wood.22mark (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

American vs. non-American spelling, yet again
Sky Attacker changed two words, with the puzzling edit summary, "The English Wikipedia uses American Terminology, not British Terminology!" I reverted the change, citing WP:ENGVAR, and indeed others had already dealt with the issue above, and come to a consensus.

Although there is a tenuous association with Great Britain (evidently one of the last regions to switch to hops), I am willing to accept that WP:RETAIN is the operative policy. When the stub tag was removed here, the article was in American spelling. The very next edit converted it to British. So it would seem that American English is the original version.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hops and the Reformation
It doesn't pass the sniff test. Gruit herbs can be many different herbs, most of them growing wild and easily gathered freely in the woods. Hops, on the other hand, is not a wild plant, requires special conditions, and would have been easier to embargo. Kortoso (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Spruce tips, food ingredient, US states?
"Spruce tips as a local food ingredient has a practical aspect as well; it is a plentiful resource in northern latitudes like Alaska, whereas hops must be imported from the lower 48 United States."

What is this sentence doing in this article? Is it a sabotage prank? I don't see how any part of it relates to the topic of the section: Spruce, food, Alaska or the contiguous United States.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gruit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404184739/http://www.gruitale.com/ to http://www.gruitale.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Henbane?
Henbane seems to say that henbane is standard in gruit, but this article does not mention it at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of "Revival" section
I am about to revert the removal of the "Revival of Gruit Beers" section. I agree that the reverted edit *may* be a *bit* spammy or promotional on the part of the person who added the information (Ksanker), but the information itself does not seem to be wrong, and it does seem to add value to the article. @Ksanker does appear to be associated with the cited site, but a quick look at the website seems to indicate it's a reasonably substantial website, even if grandiloquently named. I suggest that if you don't like the editor's website that you find a better reference or find proof that the reference is incorrect. Pretty simple. --Craig (t|c) 03:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for reconsidering the edit. And in addition, I have now learned what "grandiloquently" means. Ksanker (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (: You're welcome! --Craig (t|c) 09:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See section below. I agree with the anon. The WP:BURDEN to include this mess of fluff has not been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist: I stand by my previous point: "I suggest that if you don't like the editor's website that you find a better reference or find proof that the reference is incorrect. Pretty simple." Even the anon said, "Maybe not the best source", but was too lazy to find a better source, as you are. (That said, their personal opinion -- or maybe they're a wannabe English professor -- that they don't like the writing is also incredibly lazy, as opinions are a dime a dozen [including mine] whereas actual effort is required to improve the writing rather that just hitting "revert".) However, it has become clear to me in the last few months that some people here -- many of them so-called admins of one sort or another -- seem to equate bullying, ganging up on people and guarding their preferred version of an article as "consensus". Sadly, I'm too tired of the bullshit to give a fuck any more, so you and your "anon" on an IP address -- who is probably you or @MrOllie -- can have your degraded article. Congratulations, you've made Wikipedia better. We're all indebted to you, oh Lord. --Craig (t|c) 04:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Source written by chatGPT
The article of the "Canadian beer council" that is linked in the Revival of gruit beers section is an obvious bullshit article written by AI. You can tell by its style; the overly ornamental language and repetitive phrases give it away. It also doesn't contain specific details or useful information. Maybe not the best source. 2001:4C4C:19A1:9100:955F:86A1:94E2:61AB (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. This section has been removed and re-added. I just removed it again. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)