Talk:Beer Judge Certification Program

Deletion

I propose deleting this page for violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If anyone wants the article to stay, I propose cutting it back to a simple description of the organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebe (talk • contribs)

Please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Violation of NPOV is not a valid reason for deleting an article. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not), encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research), editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but 'content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia,' is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, 'is usually deleted'."

Bitte schön. Mikebe 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BJCP in the press

Here's an example of recent media coverage of BJCP, demonstrating notability. http://www.bakercityherald.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=4260

BJCP is a significant part of modern homebrewing practice and discussion.

I'm not sure what NPOV problems the previous commenter saw, but I'd oppose deletion of the article on either NPOV or notability grounds. -m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.99.120 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

The BJCP is not the primary subject to the article, though; WP:ORG says that BJCP should be the primary subject, and there should be several significant publications on the organization. I'm going to say that the Baker City, Oregon paper also does not qualify as a major publication. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Influence

Some of the references given simply do not support the statements made. A member of the UK craft brewers, for example, did, as cited, write about the BJCP in 2006, but, due to apparent lack of interest by the membership, it never went any further. From what I see on the UK site, this was one member two years ago suggesting looking at the bjcp. This does not support the statement. There is no reference given for anyone else. Mikebe (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is customary on Wikipedia to add {{fact}} tags to unreferenced statements and allow them to stand for a period of time instead of deleting them outright because it lacks references, especially when the statements so indicated are plausible when the available references may be inadequate. May I also respectfully request that you make an effort to improve the article by adding content and suitable references rather than by deleting them, especially doing the latter in such an aggressive manner. Thank you. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your point is, unfortunately incorrectly stated. The statement, as you know was not unreferenced, but what you wrote was not supported by the reference. (BTW, the writer, had you looked closer, is also very likely not a member of the British group as he is not British, but South African.).

Secondly, this "article" violates NPOV (it is not written as an encyclopedia article, but as a public relations bulletin). It also very likely fails to meet WP:ORG, as stated by another editor above. I refer specifically to the requirement: "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." This means that citations from homebrewing publications are not counted.

I will try to wikify this. I suggest this as a compromise. Mikebe (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why homebrewing publications should not count as reliable sources (or any other beer-related publication, since BJCP is not just about homebrewing). That's like saying any brewing magazine is not a reliable source about brewing or breweries. I believe what that guideline is meant to address is content produced by the organization themselves (i.e. the BJCP organization themselves), not the subject area they deal in (i.e. beer and homebrewing). Finally (and I'll have to go digging in the Wikipedia policies for this) it is acceptable to a degree to use an organization's own sources when the information is non-subjective and non-controversial. Stuff like how widely used and how highly regarded it is would be subjective and would need to come from sources that are independent. Stuff like the history and the current leadership are non-subjective.

It is probably fair to say that the organization's target audience is North America, and whatever recognition they've gotten from elsewhere in the world is too little to be notable (although I don't believe explicitly pointing out that they haven't achieved that notability is worth mentioning either).

Once again, we are trying to improve the article here. Gutting 90% of the content is working against that objective, and does not even remotely qualify as a reasonable compromise. I shall repeat my earlier request, which is to make more of an effort to ADD content and references to the article rather than REMOVING them. I will also repeat that when removing references it is much preferred to replace them with a {{fact}} tag and wait a reasonable period of time before making further edits based on the material being unreferenced. This is to allow other editors the opportunity to discuss and review whether the deleted references are in fact legitimate and could be restored, and to identify other references that support the material in question. By removing the references and the information in one fell swoop you are depriving other editors of this opportunity. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

From your reply, I can only assume that this is an emotional subject for you, not a rational one. This is precisely why I see this as a public relations release, not an encyclopedia article. You are not trying to describe the organisation, but to praise it. That is exactly the problem. Mikebe (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if that were true I'm not sure it's relevant. This is simply one of dozens of Wikipedia articles where I have enough of an interest in the subject to want to see a good and accurate article here about it. I shall give the article a going over to see where the tone can be altered to make it more neutral and objective, and to eliminate any peacock terms, although at a glance it doesn't appear to be in that much need of cleanup in that regard. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant? I recommend strongly that you read WP:NPOV. The problem is not so much with words or tone, the problem is precisely your POV. Why is there an "Influence" section, for example? I can see only one reason: to tell us how important the BJCP is. Mikebe (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the CAMRA article to see what a WP article about a beer organisation should look like. Secondly, the webarchive link is now also broken so I have removed it. Since you don't seem to assume good faith where I am concerned, go ahead and try it yourself. Mikebe (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK for the proper procedures to follow when links go dead. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Given the dodgy nature of many references in this article, I'm just wondering why Martyn Cornell, a well-respected beer writer who has authored several books, is regarded as an unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.192.227 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Given the dodgy nature of many references in this article" is no excuse to add still more.

The reference is to his blog, which fails WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Then how come other articles use blogs as reference? This is an example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tripel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.38.107 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has claimed that the source meets WP:RS, I've removed it and the information. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I claim it does. At least as much as all the references to material published by the bjcp itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.192.227 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are all the other claims - many referenced by dead links - going to be removed, too? If no-one claims that they meets WP:RS, I'll remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.192.227 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how it is a reliable source.

If you dispute any of the other references, tag them I did. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All the references to the bjcp site are broken. Martyn Cornell is a highly respected beer writer who specialises in the history of beer. He has published several books on the subject. His Zythophile blog is written to a very high standard and gives sources for all his statements. Unlike the bjcp site, which gives no sources for its assertions. As I pointed out, there are other beer articles which do use blogs as sources. Will all those references have to be removed? And surely the bjcp article - which reads like a press release - could do with a little balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.192.227 (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to make your case at WP:RSN for Martyn Cornell's blog?

Yes, the article needs lots of work. That's why it has been tagged for improvement. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides on whether or not blog posts are reliable sources. In this particular instance, however, the referenced blog post has only a sideways jibe at the BJCP and says virtually nothing else to support the information that is being attributed to it. If you're going to claim that a writer said something about the BJCP, you need to provide a citation where he actually says what you claim he's saying. (Furthermore, with a few minutes of poking around I was unable to locate a blogger profile, an "about" page, or anything else to confirm the identity of the blogger in question, but maybe I overlooked something obvious.) --mwalimu59 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Zythophile is Martyn Cornell. If you made did even a cursory search on the web you could confirm that. That he criticised the bjcp and is a respected beer historian is the whole point of the reference. Would you argue that no-one has ever questioned the bjcp? Are we going to remove all the dead bjcp references, too?

Take a look at this page of his blog where he talks about his book on British beer styles: http://zythophile.wordpress.com/the-best-book-on-british-beer-styles/ He's a published beer historian and the blog post I quoted casts doubt on the bjcp. Exactly why is this invalid? Especially when most of the other references are from the organisation's own website. An article should have balance, not just a single point of view. Without balancing opinion the article is just a piece of PR.

Please quote the text which comprises this (alleged) historian's (allegedly) notable critique of the BJCP, so we can see exactly what you are talking about. — goethean ॐ 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). Martyn Cornell an (alleged) historian? Either you're a total idiot or you're being deliberately insulting to one of the most dedicated and accurate beer writers in the world. (Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.247.16 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalimu59 that the reference fails to verify the information, so it should be removed per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Several third party sources have been added since November 2009. Would anyone with proper authority care to review and determine whether the "reliable sources" and "third party sources" tags can be removed?Stout1070 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is your answer. As to what it is supposed to mean, your guess is as good as mine. — goethean ॐ 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that the edit-summary was unclear. I've tagged the History section, which is the majority of the article, as having only self-published sources. There are similar problems throughout the article. See WP:SELFPUB.

Additionally, while the quality of the sources has improved, they're still of poor quality. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So, an improvement of poor quality sources is poor quality sources? Your feedback is unhelpful. What about the sources make them of poor quality? The media outlet? Or that they do not support the text? Please edit and tag with a view toward improving articles.Stout1070 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Earlier comments suggested referencing the CAMRA article as an example of excellence. Fully 50% of the references in that article are self-published. Why is that permissible, yet two references to the BJCP's history are deemed unacceptable? I'd like to help clean up the objectionable text, but I can't understand what is allowable given the vastly different treatment of these two seemingly similar articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeerEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the "needs additional sources" tag. The article has a sufficient number of sources to support the claims made, except for the History section, which is properly tagged for self-published sources. The "needs additional sources" tag is no longer needed and would be redundant. Confusing, too, for beginner editors like myself who edit in order to genuinely improve articles, rather than comb for violations.Stout1070 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ron Pattinson has a new sockpuppet

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/83.161.192.227 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoresoxforu (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)