Talk:India pale ale/Archive 2

Serious problem with unsourced history
This article has a serious problem with unsourced and inaccurate statements. There was NO real difficulty exporting beer to the East: contemporary evidence shows everything from small beer to porter surviving the journey. There were NO "tremendous efforts" by British breers to solve this non-existent problem. There is NO evidence George Hodgson, a small-time brewer(1), actually invented IPA, or deliberately designed a recipe for a beer to survive the journey to India. There is NO evidence India was a "very tempting" market for British brewers before the 1820s: if it had been, a small brewer such as Hodgson would not have been able to build up a virtual monopoly. The beer exported to Russia was NOT called "Imperial Pale Ale", it was either Burton Ale if it was pale ale from Burton upon Trent, or Imperial Stout if it was a strong stout from London. It is NOT true that "The national IPA was less hopped compared to the export version, in order to speed up the fermentation" - by "national" IPA (is this an Indian English expression?) I assume the writer means IPA sold in Britain. If this was less-hopped, it was to speed up maturation, not fermentation.

Oh, and the East Indiamen ships did NOT travel "along the coast of Africa", they went via Madeira, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil and St Helena  to get round the Cape (see Antony Wild, The East India Company, 1999)

For a more accurate version of the origins of IPA see Martyn Cornell, Beer: The Story of the Pint, 2003, pp132-139.

Zythophile (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) HA Monckton, A History of English Ale and Beer, 1966, p212; Peter Mathias, The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830, 1959, pp190-182

Zythophile, perhaps you would like to correct some of the inaccuracies in the article. It's in real need of improvement. Patto1ro (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Zythophile, please go ahead and edit as necessary. Dunkelweizen (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Second the request for Zythophile to correct the history section of the article --LarsMarius (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zythophile that the history section is in need of improvement. A lot of it is common lore about IPA contained here, but none of it is cited. For reasons that i don't really understand, common lore on IPA is not accurate, and this article should correct rather than reinforce those ideas. One of the pieces of common lore that this article is aggravating is the idea that there was pale ale and then someone super charged it for export to india. But my understanding is that the first Pale Ale was, essentially, of the sort that was exported to India. Anyway, I have a few sources at home on this subject and will tighten up the history section once I have reviewed those. philosofool (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are two good sources for the history, both with sources listed:

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/false-ale-quotes/myth-4-george-hodgson-invented-ipa-to-survive-the-long-trip-to-india/ http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/search/label/IPA

Mikebe (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good, Philosofool. Also, it may help to use one of Martyn Cornell's books (he's Zythophile, right?). Revisionism is always controversial, and while Mikebe's Zythophile link is especially helpful, I think we'll be more successful with sources that use footnotes, etc. If this becomes a heated discussion, ultimately we will have to compare notes to that degree of scrutiny, I'm afraid. Dunkelweizen (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Revision
I have significantly revised the history section of this article. Many readers will notice that it is substantially shorter than it was previously. There are several reasons for this: This history section need not be as short as it is. If a piece of information was removed that you feel was very important, please edit, and please add information not previously present. However, bear in mind two points:
 * 1) The history of IPA was a lengthy discussion without a clear narrative structure. It often digressed in insignificant details. Bear in mind that most readers, to find this article useful, will not benefit from a vivid three sentence description of what it would be like to be a cask of ale on the voyage to India in 1792.
 * 2) Much of the information, despite long standing complaints was uncited.
 * 3) Much of the information, despite belonging to common lore about IPA, is not verified by reliable sources. Moreover, some of that lore is contested.
 * 4) Even worse, some of that lore is clearly contradicted in authoritative sources and no authoritative source seems to object. That is, for all we can tell, that lore is simply false.
 * 5) Some of it wasn't even about IPA. Beer brewed in india and india pale ale share nothing except five letters of the alpha bet, so let's not have three paragraphs about beer and breweries in india and elsewhere that are not making IPA or descendants thereof.
 * History does not belong to "common knowledge" and claims about the history of this subject should be asserted with an appropriate citation. The present version, Sept. 23 2008, was constructed with an eye to three different sources, so if a favorite piece of "common knowledge" about IPA doesn't appear, it may be because that knowledge is actually a myth.
 * Preserve a good narrative structure that makes important points stand out and less important ones take a back seat. philosofool

(talk) 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently undid a revision that suggested that other beers could not be successfully exported to India. It was uncited and I have found no reliable source that verifies the claim, which seems mostly to have evolved form legends printed on brewpub menus. If there is a reliable source for claims about IPA's unique ability to survive exportation to india, let's talk about it here. philosofool (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Palmer Reference
A user recently added a reference to John Palmer's work "how to brew" regarding the history of IPA and the use of hops specifically to aid in the preservation of IPA in the voyage to India. However, in the most recent addition of Palmer's work, he does not say that the story is true, but reports that it is "common mythos." (p. 217) I removed the claim and the reference, since several sources (mentioned in the article) either disagree or make no mention of this common tale. philosofool (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

IBUs: the peeing contest
OK, let's hash this out here now, just so it's on record. What should or shouldn't be in the article regarding IBU superlatives? What distinctions should be regarded (calculated from hop schedule? measured by hplc or other means? anything beyond limits of perception)? I ask this now, not only because it's being disputed, but also because doubtless it will be disputed again. Dunkelweizen (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IBU numbers aren't very informative. IBU is 1 part per million (or is it billion) isomerized alpha acid in beer. It is correlated with bitterness, but the perception of isoalpha acids is greatly affected by the original gravity, percent attenuation, malt flavors, presence of hop essential oils and the type of alpha acid in question. It is also affected by abv, esters and other flavor components. Note that hops flavors are not the result of isomerized acids, and what many people think is bitterness as measured by IBUs is actually something else, viz. essential oils and other flavor compounds in hops. Since IBUs are only somewhat informative about a beer, I think that this article should discuss them exactly to the same degree that an article on pilsner, porter, hefe weizen or any other beer article should. To do otherwise gives the impression that IBUs are somehow important to IPA in a way that they are not in other beers. Attention to bitterness is an element of every style, IPAs merely happen to be at one extreme. If there's a well documented sociological phenomenon surrounding IPA and IBUs, that would merit one cited sentence in the article that would not be important in another beer article. philosofool (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source other than BA, which lists its actual IBU at 112? A 200 IBU beer is huge and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.103.165 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I could possibly dig one up, but this "FWeezle" character (are you still there?) really ought to put one forward if she or he can. I've saw this "most extreme" section go through a few questionable changes back in June, and I can see now that it deserves some attention.  If your concern is that a calculated IBU is irrelevant, I can sympathize with your position (especially since factors like solubility can keep a brewer from getting as much hop oil into a beer as he or she might like, depending on the recipe).  But on the face of it, to write about a calculated IBU--and to be clear in doing so--is not dishonest or confusing at all.  To my mind, the most problematic part of the "which beer is the most bitter" question is that the human sensory threshold (around 100 IBUs? I could research this) prevents these extremely bitter beers from tasting any bitterer than that threshold level.  The result is that a beer with a kazillion IBUs and a beer with two kazillian IBUs will taste equally bitter, all other things remaining the same.  This leads me to wonder--and to ask--whether and how it might be valuable to talk about IPAs with very high IPUs.  Should any beers be named at all, then? Dunkelweizen (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Usefulness of Examples
I'm gonna say a bunch of stuff that's in a really authoritative voice, rather than trying quality it. Respond. There're dozens of examples in this article and we need to figure out whether that's really helping our readers.

The use of lots of examples is common in beer pages in wikipedia. This is perceived as informative, but I don't think that it always or even usually is. Some of the problems with examples include: I think that this article has problems with too many examples, and many of that is subject to the sorts of criticisms above. Remember that the goal of this article is not to implicitly recommend to the readers that they try any particular IPA, nor even that they taste IPA in general: such behavior is POV, as it implicitly suggests that certain courses of action are good. Selecting a favorite IPA to tell the reader about is often inappropriate, even if what you say about it is true.
 * Examples are often only helpful to people familiar with them. If I tell you "the taste of stone pale as is hoppy" that's very helpful if you know what stone pale ale tastes like.
 * Examples may give the appearance that a particular exemplar is especially important. When the examplar is especially important, that may be a good thing; when the exemplar is not especially important, it is not a good thing.
 * Examples tend to blossom more exemplifying. Articles can quickly become a litany of examples.
 * The selection of examples often results from the experiences of the editor that offers them. Although not necessarily a pernicious case of such a thing, examples often represent POV.

In case you're wondering how I got on this topic: I'm a pretty knowledgeable guy when it comes to things beer and there are several example in this article that didn't help me understand the topic in the slightest. philosofool (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All good ideas. I may begin to respond in a couple days--my participation here is really procrastinating about work I should be doing.  One idea: we could impose an arbitrary example limit, either total or by nation of origin.  We did this with the barley wine article, if I recall correctly. Dunkelweizen (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion that we've had a number of times (not only once). I was especially bothered by the barley wine article (I'm pretty sure you are correct) because we had this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Archive3#Number_of_Examples_in_Articles already in 2007 and there was consensus on the number 4 for the country of origin and 3 for other countries. I don't quite understand why we need to keep agreeing to different agreements when there is already a perfectly good one in place. As has been said before: these long lists of beer names are helping no one. Personally, I think Silktork's idea to put the examples in the text is the best solution because that will discourage brewers and their friends from just adding their name to the list, as they do now. Mikebe (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my view is actually stronger than these. The basic rule should be Include only examples that will help a reader unfamiliar with the subject. After that, examples should meet 4 out of 5 of the following constraints (originally proposed in the archieve Mikebe links above.)
 * well-established -- ideally, produced for as long as the style has existed
 * available -- should be in general production today
 * recognized -- by major awards and citeable beer journalists (e.g. Roger Protz, Michael Jackson)
 * typical -- should represent the style in itself, not an unusual or novel intepretation
 * notable in itself -- perhaps redundant, but if a beer is worth pointing to and saying "this is what a pale ale ought to be" then we should be able to say something in particular about the beer.
 * I can't actually think of very many examples that will be helpful to a reader, unless they're simply offering a recommendation, which would be POV and hence inappropriate. Furthermore, I think there's a POV problem with offering examples: you can't offer all the examples that fit the above criteria (too many) but the selection of just one would seem to give undue weight to a particular representative. philosofool (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback from Zythophile
Writer/blogger Martyn Cornell posted some suggestions about this article on one of his posts' comment pages:

Well, it’s better now than it was, but there are still misunderstandings. Terry Foster’s book is - well - not the most accurate source. There’s no evidence I know of to say when Hodgson first began selling beer for export to India, and he wasn’t doing it himself anyway, it was the independent East India Company ship’s captains who bought the beer off him. Hodgson’s beer only had about half the Indian beer trade in 1800. The “exact reasons” why the Burton brewers got into the India trade aren’t a mystery at all - see both my Beer: the Story of the Pint and Amber Gold and Black for what happened. I don’t know where the idea that “many brewers dropped the term “India” in the late 19th century” comes from - “India Pale Ale” continued to be a part of the line-up of pale bitter ales for many, perhaps most brewers. “Hodgson’s style of brewing is probably responsible for term India Pale Ale.” - no - it was called India Pale Ale because it was “pale ale as prepared for India”. “His beer was lower in alcohol than most beer brewed in his day” - no it wasn’t, it was probably around or slightly higher than the average. “… a greater proportion of the wort was fermented” - well, it would have been drier than mild ale, but not necessarily drier than aged porter or stout .. “and the beer was strongly hopped.” That’s true, but so were other beers meant to be aged. Hope that’s helpful!

We can do what we want with this, but I thought it might be helpful. Dunkelweizen (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful. Unfortunately, we're in a difficult situation regarding sources: quite simply, we have some that are conflicting. I suspect that Mr. Cornell's is more authoritative. I am going to buy the book and I will do my best to make this article reflect it's content in a way that does justice to the "alternative views." philosofool (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been saying here for a long time that the American homebrewing guide series provide very unreliable information about European beers. Alas, to very little avail. Philosofool, I am very happy to read that you are now beginning to understand this problem and will take the correct step of using Martyn Cornell's book. I had posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India_Pale_Ale&diff=prev&oldid=240499877
 * the suggestion that you use Ron Pattinson's articles about IPA which include all information on the source material. Regrettably, you chose not to use that. I would also like to point out that "alternative views" is not relevant here: these are historical facts and the issue is not one of "view", it is one of reliability and authority. Again, I think you are taking the right step and hope that this will become the rule and not an exception. Thanks. Mikebe (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, wikipedia policy frowns on the use of self-published sources, WP:SPS. And when two published sources contradict one another, it is not wikipedia policy for the editors simply to pick the one that they prefer. Because Mr. Cornell is a published author in this field, it is acceptable to use his work, but wikipedia policy warns against it. I am doing my best to see what in Mr. Cornell's work is sufficiently well-documented that it can be regarded as a scholarly authority on this topic, but since there are no references or explicit citations in much of it, that may be difficult to do. I'm hoping that he will publish and thereby certify this work. By the way, Foster's book is much in accord in several respects with Mr. Cornell's book. (By the way, Mr. Foster is British.) philosofool (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reasoned reply. As I have said now twice before, please look at the URL I gave you to Ron Pattinson's site. None of his sources are self-published, he only reports what he has found in books, most frequently written during the period he is describing. At that time (18-20th centuries) I doubt self-publishing existed. Secondly, as I have said to you before, brewing guides are not valid on historical events unless the author is also recognised as a historical authority. The fact that Foster is also British, unfortunately, is no guarantee that he is an authority on British beer history and, for a further example of that, Horst Dornbusch, who has also written brewing guides, also makes serious mistakes about German beer, his area of "authority." It seems to me it is always preferable to look first to local sources in the subject before looking at foreign sources. Wouldn't you agree? Mikebe (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebe (talk • contribs)


 * So are you suggesting we use Ron's sources as primary sources for this article? That makes sense.  But we would have to be careful to avoid WP:OR in our use of those sources.  It's extremely important that we proceed as defensibly as possible.  There are plenty of misinformed, stubborn Wikipedians who will challenge anything they don't already believe, so revisions of this article should be made on as solid a foundation as can be managed. Dunkelweizen (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkelweizen (talk • contribs)


 * (There seems to be something wrong with the SineBot, but that's a different discussion.) Looking at Ron's IPA articles, I see the following sources: “Scottish Ale Brewer” (by W.H. Roberts, Edinburgh, 1847, pages 171 and 173), "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, pages 60-61, original brewing log 4 february 1839 and Whitbread brewing logs 1933. This was just a quick scan. Keep in mind this is mainly just data. Someone needs to go through and pick out the relevant parts and put it together. I also found this: http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerale.htm#loftusi This is a just a scan of several pages from the Loftus book. Mikebe (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BJCP
Without objections, I shall link this aticle to the BJCP. BJCP (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. Patto1ro (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for something more substantive, but if you want to take it to a vote we can go that route too. BJCP (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:!vote. I also object. For the same reasons that BJCP has not been linked to on other beer pages (refer to most of the talk pages that link to BJCP for info on this). This article is about one particular style; other styles don't link to BJCP and shouldn't. There is no reason that a link to BJCP would assist readers of this particular article. --Karnesky (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

English style
I wanted to point out that, given the recent edits changing all spelling to commonwealth/British style spelling, that because this is an English-style-neutral article, and because the first version was written in American English, the proper style is American English. Please refrain from changing to British style unnecessarily. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the article was originally in British English and has been changed into US English. Look back through the history of the article.83.161.192.227 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent
This article is incredibly incoherent, with the United States section being a serious offender. I'm not knowledgeable enough to rewrite, so hope someone else will soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.155.211 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of inaccurate statement
I have removed the entirely inaccurate statement "The October beer of Loren Jennings' Bow Brewery was the world's first India Pale Ale." and replaced it with a sentence stating that George Hodgson was one of the first known named brewers whose beer was exported to India. The rest of the piece then flows on from there. Zythophile (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Pale Ale?
I know that some breweries have used this term, but I don't think it refers to anything distinct enough to count as a recognizable sub-"style" within the IPA family, as in the present article. How is "Northwest Pale Ale" different from other IPA's brewed with Northwest hops that are just called IPA's or American IPA's. I think this an independent source identifying this style and discussing its characteristics is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.160.198 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IPA Shelf life at sea a Myth?
The article states that the commonly repeated statement that IPA derives it's recipe and name from having a long shelf life while being shipped to India around the great horn of Africa.
 * "Moreover, porter shipped to India at the same time survived the voyage, and common claims that Hodgson formulated his beer to survive the trip and that other beers would not survive the trip are probably false."

The source for this myth busting is weak at best, see the footnote:"Myth 4: George Hodgson invented IPA to survive the long trip to India" Ozten (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't read like a weak source to me. While it's a blog type reference, it has all the hallmarks of authority. It would be encumbant on an editor to show that the source somehow conflicted with similarly or more credible ones before I would think that this should be changed. As someone who's read a lot of beer history, it certainly fits what I know. (Additionally, things we read on the back of a menu at a brew pub are not to be taken as authoritative. I have never seen any historical beer source repeat the IPA shelf life story. philosofool (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"The source for this myth busting is weak at best" As the author of the blog to which that footnote refers (though NOT the person who put that footnote in the article - no primary research in Wikipedia articles, etc), I can assure you that my sources are certainly not "weak", but 15 years' worth of researching 18th and 19th century newspapers, magazines and books. If you have evidence, actual hard primary-account evidence from the period, to back the claim that George Hodgson invented IPA to survive the journey to India, I'd be delighted to see it. Zythophile (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prior to the opening of the Suez Canal all shipping from Britain to India had to go via the Cape of Good Hope, which apart from making the journey considerably longer than today, has some very rough seas. In addition, for a sailing ship - cheaper than a steamer where cost is important, the trip 'round the Cape' might be delayed due to contrary winds and weather.
 * The main consumers would probably have been the Indian Army and the Army of India - after the Indian Mutiny in 1857 one-third of the Indian Army was thereafter made up of British troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but more or less irrelevant. This says nothing about Hodgson's motivations in brewing that particular beer. 64.15.81.27 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New sidebar
I'm surprised to see the beer style articles in such a sad state! I designed a simple sidebar for beer categories here: User:JauntBox/Infobox_beer_styles. I got the style info from Brewing Classic Styles (Zainasheff and Palmer) and the BJCP guidelines. I was a little unclear on what to do for the entire IPA style category values since there's quite a bit of variation from and English IPA to an Imperial IPA. I left them as the global bounds on the category for simplicity (eg. overall IBU from 40-120 whereas an English IPA would have 40-60 IBU) since adding all the detail for larger style categories would probably get overwhelming to the reader. I've never made a component like this before, so what's the procedure for adding it to the article? Do we need to request a beer style infobox? Did I leave out anything or is too much there? JauntBox (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The procedure for adding BJCP styles to the articles is: not to do it. They are unhistorical and inaccurate. 92.235.37.187 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On what do you base your assertion? BJCP guidelines and BJCP certified judges have been used for many years for judging beer at the largest beer festivals in the world. Guinness323 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, they are guidelines used by one organisation for judging beer at festivals. They have no validity outside that function, are not based on historical beer styles (most of them only exist in the BJCP's head having been thought up by them in the last twenty years) and they are therefore not a reliable source when it comes to the history of beer or brewing. Haldraper (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the BJCP should not be used as a source for articles. However, on some styles, the BJCP is quite accurate. These are, unsurprisingly, usually American styles. The claim that they have no validity outside the function of providing standards for beer judging overstates things. philosofool (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if the BJCP guidelines aren't meant to be taken as gospel, they are still useful as far as explaining styles to the layperson. You're telling me there is no room for common IPA flavor profiles in this article? You think a non-beer drinker is going to have any idea what the difference is between Chinook and Fuggles? This information is meaningless on two fronts: 1) it gives almost no tangible, relatable information to the layperson, and 2) it doesn't have any information that any moderately-informed beer drinker hasn't already heard a thousand times before. All we are doing is listing the "history of IPAs"? For a style that has exploded over the last few years, this article is a pale shadow of much better resources out there. I'm with JauntBox, sad sad sad. Bill shannon (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree about the validity of the BJCP guidelines. They are widely used in homebrewing competitions and have been cited by reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal and Zymurgy magazine.  Fortunately, we have other sources we can use besides the BJCP - Ray Daniels's "Brewing Classic Styles" gathers IBU/gravity data from many historical recipes and samples, as well as from modern home and commercial brews.
 * TO be more specific about this article, the sections on American IPAs need significant revision and expansion. The laundry lists of "IPAs are produced by breweries A,B,C,D...N" have rightly been removed, but there is a lot of referenced information we can add about this vibrant and popular style.  I recently picked up a copy of the Oxford Companion to Beer that will be a good place to start looking for material.  Skinwalker (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that, in the absence of any kind of listing of flavor profiles, listing examples of style is really the only recourse we have in this case. I think it's really unfortunate that the IPA is one of the most popular (and growing) styles of beer in the United States, and this is what passes for an article. Unfortunately, it appears that most people really only want "the facts" about beer, such as gravity, IBU's, etc, but without any kind of explanation of what the flavors are (or at least ones that reputable sources have cited: Michael Jackson, Randy Mosher, Stephen Beaumont, Ratebeer, BeerAdvocate, All About Beer, etc., take your pick), the information is essentially worthless. [Note: I think this applies to all the beer articles on Wikipedia, it's just that IPAs are the style that I feel gets the shortest shrift here.] Bill shannon (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As an avid homebrewer and sometimes beer judge, I actually disagree that the styles can be useful in helping lay persons. The problem is that the guidelines give false impressions about beers styles, for example, by being organized into relatively arbitrary groups or producing overly fine distinctions (such as between ordinary bitter and special bitter.) For beer judging, such boundaries are necessary, but they give an impression that these categories are a sort of knowledge rather than a somewhat arbitrary classification demanded by practical needs of beer judges. philosofool (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the infobox before reading this discussion (I apologise for that). I honestly think that that type of box might be useful as a quick look to the beer style. As it is merely illustrative (classifying a beer is quite an arbitrary thing) I don't see what is the problem with BJCP, but we can use the data on Michael Jackson or Ray Daniels books if people think they are better references we can go from there. We could extend this discussion to what a beer style infobox should include. --Ferranbrosa (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Imperial Pale Ale
I and others remember that IPA in the UK used to usually stand for Imperial Pale Ale and only reverted to India Pale Ale in the last 20 years. Imperial Pale Ale redirects to this article which seems to confirm this but there's no mention of this in the article. Does anyone more knowledgeable on the subject than me know anything about this change, whether it's related to "political correctness" or similar or have any citations on this matter? 92.238.190.190 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Imperial (or Double) India Pale Ales are simply IPA's that have a higher alcohol content. They were designed (like Imperial Stouts) to survive longer voyages by ship from the British Empire to other places (in the case of Stouts, for example, to Russia). It's a different category, and not a matter of being politically correct (or incorrect) at all. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. 92.238.190.190 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there never was, historically, a style of beer called "Imperial Pale Ale" or "Imperial IPA", and no British brewer, historically, ever brewed one - the name is completely an invention of the American brewing scene over the past 10 years or so. "IPA" has always stood for "India Pale Ale". And the whole "higher alcohol level to survive the voyage" thing is a myth as well - see eg here. Imperial Stout wasn't brewed strong to survive the journey - it was brewed strong because that's how the Russians liked it. Zythophile (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct; I'm pretty well-versed with the Southern California beer scene, and was under the impression that "Imperial" was just borrowed from Imperial Russian Stout as applied to pale ales (and is more or less synonymous with double IPA or triple IPA). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I never said there was a style called 'Imperial Pale Ale' but, rather, Imperial IPA... and for the record, a lot of what gets passed around in beer-geek circles (by both the industry insiders as well as homebrewers) is founded in myth. Thanks for the blog read.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Imperial IPA Origin
I've changed the paragraph to reflect the accepted position that Vinnie at Blind Pig (now Russian River) Brewco began the style. This is supported in the already-existing reference (original poster neglected to read the next sentence of the quote, clearly stating as much). -24.130.65.122 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information about American IPAs
I'd like to start a discussion about the persistent removal of sourced information about American IPAs. This is an important and vital part of the IPA umbrella, and we need to devote space to covering it with reliable sources. Haldraper, could you state some policy-based reasons why the following sourced paragraph should be removed:

"East Coast IPAs are distinguished from West Coast IPAs in that the former have a stronger malt presence that balances the intensity of the hops whereas the latter endeavors to foreground the hops more. According to Steve Wagner of the Stone Brewing Company, it is conceivable that this is a corollary of the geographic proximity of West Coast breweries to hop fields in the Pacific Northwest. East Coast breweries rely more on European hops, which have spicier qualities. Sam Calagione of the Dogfish Head Brewery has indicated that East Coast breweries tend to make greater use of specialty malts in their recipes than is common in the west.[18][19][20]". Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It strikes me as undue to have so much detail about the supposed difference between East and West Coast IPA's which is after all a relatively minor - and certainly very recent - part of the roughly two hundred and fifty year history of IPA. Haldraper (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In the context of American IPAs it's pertinent to the article to discuss the emergence of the two styles and how they're often distinguished from one another. It's commonplace at beer tastings and in contemporary beerspeak to categorize American IPAs as being in either the East Coast or the West Coast tradition.—Biosketch (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is true. East coast IPAs tend to fit more in the English IPA style.  West coast IPAs are much more floral, hop-forward, (catpissy if you aren't a fan of the style), etc.  Personally I think American and English IPAs have diverged to the point where they could be considered separate styles, though this is just my opinion not backed by sources.  In any case, I have a copy of the Oxford Beer Companion which I think can be used to balance the recentism and the need to duly cover all branches of the IPA style.  I'll propose some text in the near future.  In the meantime, I'd be willing to simplify the disputed text .  Here's what I suggest:
 * "East Coast IPAs often have a strong malt presence and are distinguished from West Coast IPAs which emphasize hop intensity. This may be due to the greater availability of high alpha acid hops in the Pacific Northwest. East Coast breweries also tend to make greater use of specialty malts in their recipes.[18][19][20]"
 * Thoughts? Skinwalker (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I'm just reading the OCB now on Google Books. There's a passage marked with Template:Cn in the article about Hodgson that can probably be reworded and sourced to page 483 of the OCB: "Many histories of IPA wrongly credit George Hodgson's brewery in East London with the 'invention' of IPA. He did not invent it—his brewery was not even the first to be mentioned by name in the Indian market—but he did evolve an existing beer style until it became phenomenally popular in India, almost to the exclusion of all his competitors."
 * About trimming the East/West Coast addition, it may potentially be more elegant to take the names of the breweries out. I just included them so the readers'd know where that information was coming from.—Biosketch (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. Hodgson probably deserves his own article.  Skinwalker (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian "first"
Confused - The first pic shows the "East India pale ale". The other two show the same thing "East India Pale Ale" & "East India Ale", and the last is a British label for the Australian market "India Pale Ale" Chaosdruid (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So who is Hodgson?
He just kind of appears in this article out of the blue with no introduction or hyperlink. It makes the history kind of confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:800:6BE:5DD9:11B5:F691:37FF (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are asking this sort of question you should start to learn about beer history. Start with a little research, https://www.eastlondonhistory.co.uk/history-bow-brewery/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raytelford (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)