Talk:Witbier

The Belgian witbier is different from the (german) wheat beers

Merger proposal

Djlayton4 proposes merging with Wheat beer. I oppose, on the grounds that Belgian witbier, German weizens, Berliner weisse, and other types of wheat ales are distinct members of a group, and that at the very least witbier and hefeweizen are important enough to have pages of their own. There is nonetheless an argument for reducing wheat beer to something just a little more than a disambiguation page (much info has already been duplicated in the hefeweizen and white beer/witbier pages. BrendanH 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose also. Belgian wit is a distinct style with its own history, brewing techniques, ingredients, and flavor. Its certainly worth mentioning under the Wheat beer article, but more than deserves its own.--Allegrorondo 12:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose. White beer or wit is its own style that is enough different from wheat beer to require its own entry. I do suggest adding a link to White beer in the wheat beer entry though,

I also oppose. White beers differ from standard wheats in that 4-vinyl guaiacol is found in a lot of white beers but not so much the standard hefs or other wheats in that class. Beer drinkers should be able to see the traits of each style on thier own page without trying to dissiminate a single page of facts.

I oppose. A belgian witbier is a completely different beer than a german hefeweizen. Both are wheat beers, yes. They have different characters though. I would agree to adding seperate links to witbiers, hefeweizens, etc. from the main wheat beer page. bigcat03 19:40, 6 July 2006 (CST)

Change name to Witbier

I propose changing the name of this article to "Witbier". Even in English speaking areas, the style is more commonly referred to as "wit" rather than "white" is it not? Alienmercy 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page, per the request at WP:RM, and lack of opposition here in the last week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Blue Moon

Let's avoid the edit war and just talk about the notability of Blue Moon. I personally feel that it should be listed. It's probably the most well-known example in the US, and since there are a lot of US readers of Wikipedia, I think it is appropriate to include at least one example that might relate their frames of reference. Alienmercy 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Woops my fault for not checking the edit history. User:Mikebe had just removed Blue Moon and I did not know that when I added it because there was one sitting in front of me. Sorry about that. -Susanlesch 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me also clarify that Blue Moon wasn't the only US example, I just think it is the most notable of them merely because of its wide distribution (it is distributed by Molsen Coors). Alienmercy 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to discuss than edit war. There are already two US witbieren in the list (Allagash and Ommegang). Although I do not normally like to use Ratebeer or Beeradvocate as references (because they are so heavily American and because some of the ratings are bizarre), however, in this case, I would point out that Blue Moon does not come even close to notability in the view of the users of either site. Also, I disagree with the idea that frequency=notability. Mikebe 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the rating by enthusiasts even should be the only source of notability. Bud Light is the most popular beer in the US by a landslide, but it gets terrible ratings (which I agree with). I personally think one of the reason for the "examples" list is so that readers (who may not be enthusiasts) might see something they recognize and understand the style from that perspective. I live in the Midwest, and have never even heard of Allagash nor Ommegang (although I'm sure they're fine examples). I have Michael Jackson's Ultimate Beer sitting in front of me, and the only two US examples he lists are Blue Moon (which he notes because of its availability from the World's largest brewery) and Celis White (which he notes because it is brewed by Pierre Celis who moved to Austin, Texas after selling the Hoegaarden brewery in Belgium). I would say these two examples are more notable than the Allagash and Omeegang beers because of the reasons Jackson gives. Alienmercy 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not to mention the taste. Only kidding! Happy New Year. -Susanlesch 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Susan and the same to you and Alienmercy. Well, about Celis White: the brewery was sold to, I believe, Miller, which promptly closed it. I believe a small brewery somewhere in America later bought the name and is making it again, but only locally. Obviously, I am not an authority on American beers, but, as it happens, I have met Pierre Celis and this is what he told me. IAC, I think you have made a very good example with Bud Light. The question then becomes do we want to give an example because it is well known or because it gives a good representation of whatever it is an example of? Personally, I would choose the second one. I think we do not give readers a benefit if we list something only because it is well known, not because it represents something well. If I knew very little about beer and came to Wikipedia after tasting something special and wanted to learn more about it, if I then tried a Bud Light or a Blue Moon because I saw it listed here, I would be very upset. Personally, I don't know the other US beers either, but, I am confident that they represent better the Belgian style than a Blue Moon. Mikebe 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Again sorry Mikebe. I am happy that the edit war didn't happen. I know nothing about Witbier unfortunately and imagine there are better examples from Belgium. Lienenkugels sometime in the Midwest USA. Cheers. -Susanlesch 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If Celis White isn't around anymore, perhaps we should remove it as well. I personally don't see a problem including examples from both categories of notability (that is, 1) well known and 2) good representation). Perhaps we should wait and get a few more opinions before making a final decision. Alienmercy 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We could say something like: "Blue Moon is a widely available example, although not considered an authentic representation of the style." The problem is that the 'authentic' clause will likely remain unsourced for the forseeable future. — goethean ॐ 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, prepare for a shock: I actually agree with Goethean! Actually, though, another way of saying what he wrote is: Blue Moon, though widely available, is a bad example of the style. This sums up my reason for not using it. And, if we followed the same logic for the pilsener article, it would be filled with similar examples: Bud, Miller, Stella Artois, etc. Mikebe 12:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think unauthentic is a word more in line with WP:NPOV than "bad", but I'm ok with it. However, neither of those statements should be made without sufficient sourcing. What do you think about scrapping the "examples" section altogether and including them more in the body of the article? In Jackson's book which I mentioned earlier, he says something about Celis reviving the style in the 1960s and then other breweries started popping up, etc. I think we could add some info on this part of the history, and then modern examples (especially the authentic) can find their way in. Alienmercy 14:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I would suggest keeping the examples as they are but listing them by country, of course without Blue Moon. I agree absolutely that it would be a good idea to include the history from the Jackson book. Since I have spoken with Celis, I can perhaps add information to it. I also have other, perhaps more recent, sources for the history. How about that? Mikebe 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More info about Celis would be great. I know there is some info at the Hoegaarden Brewery page, and I'm looking for more so that we can include it (with good citation) within a context of more breweries. What Jackson writes is very brief and not very specific, but I'm hoping it will lead me to more sources. If all else fails, I'll try to summarize what he writes. Any suggestions on other sources would be great. I think I'm going to try to dedicate some time to writing more for this article, but I work slowly, so no guarantees on when it will be ready. Thanks. Alienmercy 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having looked at the Hoegaarden article you referenced, I really can't recommend using it. Notice, for example, that they give two different years for when the fire occured! However, since this article is about witbier and not Hoegaarden/Celis, I'll do a little research on the Dutch Wikipedia and see if they have anything helpful. I'll let you know. Mikebe 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikibox

The wikibox around the glass should be removed. Wikiboxes are usually used for verifiable facts and all these details are very debatable. Like I've mentioned in other places, If someone makes a wort with an OG of 1.051 is it no longer a Witbier? Also, the Wikibox is where a visitor to the article will probably first look, and the average wikipedia user does not care about these stats, nor do they know what they mean. If anything, there should be a separate article section talking about the BJCP's involvement with the style, with the stats listed there, properly sourced. Beakerboy 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)