Talk:Beer in Belgium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stan Hieronymous

I have had quite enough of this nonsense and it will end here. I am not an idiot and I find it highly insulting to be treated like one. Philosofool, I said "there is a problem with A" and your response was "prove B". To be specific, I wrote "your claim is not supported by your quote ("it was a signal to start selling bigger beer") nor by fact". Your reply is "Please offer sources that conflict with these authorities in talk before removing these citation from the article." You mean like you did with the source for the first sentence? Or in removing the fact tag I had put in?

well, he does have a point with his last two questions. You pretty much did the same with the first citation (well, actually the second), philosofool. But anyway, let's try to solve this in a rational manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to provide sources, you need to justify yours. I would recommend you take a look at WP:RS. I refer specifically to the sentence which reads: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (not my italics). The book you are using is about brewing, it is not a social or cultural history. Stan Hieronymous may well be an "authority" on home brewing, but nowhere has he ever presented himself as a social or cultural historian.

Please. That publication is far more qualified to discuss the history of Belgian beer than consumer advocacy magazine is to talk about "high-quality" beers. The quote in question said that monastaries benefited from an increased demand for strong beer that resulted from a prohibition of gin. What more could you ask for?

Excuse me? Are we reading the same quote? "It was a signal to sell bigger beer." Let's also keep in mind that the person he is quoting does not, unless he is nearly 100 years old, have direct knowledge of the situation, so all he's doing is quoting someone else or making an assumption. I have also read -- on a Belgian site because that is where good scholars do research on a Belgian subject -- that the ban was not widely followed, that many pubs kept bottles of jenever (the drink that was banned) for their regulars and, as I had posted

several messages ago, spirits based on rum and cognac were not banned.

No, we are not reading the same quote. You are ingnoring most of what was quoted. The quote you are reading is "It was a signal to start selling bigger beer." The quote I am reading is "Monastery breweries clearly benefited from the growing popularity of stronger beers, fuled in part by an invasion of foreign beres, and just much by a prohibition on the sale of spirits (genievre/gin) in bars and other public places...." There was more in the quote, which is what you keep referencing, but the quote quiet clearly stated what I was claiming in the article.

Also, let me please remind you (for the second time) that it is not wikipedia policy to reject a source of scholarship because of it's national origin. Such a requirement would represent an unjustifiable scholarly bias. Scholarly work is to be assessed on the basis of verifiabilty and reliability of the work, not slanders about where a person comes from. It is also not the policy of wikipedia to prefer the claims of knowledge to editors over the written published work that editors cite; indeed, the opposite is the case: it is the burden of editors to show that a particular citation is incorrect. So far, all you are giving the other editors is original research.

You claim that this source is unreliable, but I have yet to see you produce anything but your opinion that it is. There is absolutely nothing in wikipedia policy to suggest the Heironymus is not a reliable source. philosofool (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You may think it is qualified to discuss Belgian beer history but I know it is not qualified and furthermore, the rules of WP support my view. BTW, I hope you noticed the fact tag I put next to your addition to the introduction. Mikebe (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I met Stan about two weeks ago and spent a very pleasant evening drinking beer and speaking with him. He is travelling through Europe with his wife and daughter and he arranged to see Ron Pattinson and me when he was in Amsterdam. He wanted to ask Ron's help in doing some historical research on a new project. He said to Ron: "I am not a historian." Can you get more direct than that?

Sorry Mikebe but i'm am going to take philosofool's side here. His sources are far more trustworthy and verifiable than anything you have offered up, and he benefits from not attempting to fill this article with POV-laden drivel. While you are doling out advice about how to edit, you might want to spend a minute looking over WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Your claim to not be an idiot would be bolstered significantly if you actually followed your own advice. A meeting with Stan and a one-off comment from him is hardly a basis to dispute a quote which supports the view of many other cited authors. Your obvious bias against home-brewing ruins, for me, any credibility which you might have arguing about this particular issue, and your claim of residence in Europe as evidence that you are an authority on European beers is laughable at best.Casconed (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[WP:OR]. Besides "I am not a chemist" doesn't mean that I don't know anything about chemistry. I'm sure that when Mr. Heironymus wrote several chapters that included discussions of history, he was just lying through his teeth the whole time, pulling things out of his ass? Or, more reasonably, we could take him to be reporting what he knows, even though he is not a historian.

I got an email back from him. Here's what he wrote me: "The quote is essentially correct, BUT it misses some context and gets quite a bit wrong about the development of the tripel." Thanks for your honesty. Mikebe (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Or is there someplace in WP where it says: "Only American sources may be used, regardless of the subject"? Because if it doesn't say that, please stop this "game". We've already wasted enough time on it. Mikebe (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at WP:V#Non-English_sources i think it spells out what needs to happen when you insist on using non-english sources. Casconed (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

History

I added a cursory history section. Please add to it to make it better. philosofool (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Absurd" Introduction

Some one came by and reverted this article to a previous edition citing an "absurdly unencyclopedic" introduction. While that description might be over the top, the introduction that was removed was not encyclopedic at all. It begins with a quotation about how good belgian beer is and compares its place in Belgian society to that of wine in "most countries" [presumably, most European countries] instead of general information about belgian beer. I don't think I need to justify reverting this again. Also, it is bad form to undo a reversion rather than bringing the reversion to a talk page when a reason for the reversion is offered. philosofool (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Cleanup" vs Significant Alteration

I agree with philosofool above - certain users have a nasty habit of undoing other people's work under the guise of "cleanup" and then reverting reversions and whining about taking it to talk. Particularly indicative is this change: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Belgian_beer&diff=239362496&oldid=239361510 which is clearly a larger change than should be covered under "cleanup" (which was the description given for this change - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Belgian_beer&oldid=239356046). I would go so far to say as it eliminates a significant piece of history from the article with no good reason given. So, as requested, here we are in talk. Casconed (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to know so much about this subject, why don't you explain what this "significant piece of history" is and how it is relevant to this article? Also, since you only made an account yesterday, how do you know that something is "a habit"? Mikebe (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, habits are logged in histories of articles, which are available all over wikipedia. And many talk pages make it very clear that certain people seem to get at the heart of certain controversies. I agree that users should be careful about the phrase "clean up" which often sounds smaller than it is. Remember when removing a piece of information from an article that one should first seek to move it to a more appropriate section, such (in the present case) history. By the way, the lack of a "history section" in this article is a glaring oversight on the part of we editors and it should be rectified. philosofool (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As philosofool pointed out, the length of time i've been a member of the site does not preclude notice or foreknowledge of the antics of members who have been around longer than i. The "significant piece of history in question" is the Vandervelde Act, which bears widespread mention in articles about Belgian beer, but which is curiously absent (by your hand) from this article, for no reason other than "cleanup". The bogosity of this astonishes me, but given your revision history perhaps I should be less surprised. Casconed (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "I would go so far to say as it eliminates a significant piece of history from the article with no good reason given". I asked you how this is relevant to the article. You have not answered this. This is just like another edit where your summary was "sorry i gave a reason for my edit, the onus is on you to take it to talk" (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Belgian_beer&curid=1744139&diff=239352238&oldid=239216554), but the "reason" you gave was "sorry, they are "styles" not" (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Belgian_beer&curid=1744139&diff=239111749&oldid=239057866). Why, when we have WP:AGF do you come here and start calling work "absurd" (your very first edit!), undoing work without discussing first on the talk page, claiming that something is "a significant piece of history" without explaining why and saying an editor has "a nasty habit of undoing other people's work" and "whining". You seem to be a kind of person who would describe himself as "a wandering minstrel hell-bent on ridding wikipedia of pedantic blowhards" (from your user page). Who appointed you to this position?

But enough about you. Let's get back to the question at hand: for a second time, how is Vandervelde relevant to this article? In detail, please. Mikebe (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1919, Beligium out lawed the sale of spirits. A google search shows that this was known as the Vandervelde Act. Many, many sources cite this prohibition as creating an increased demand for high-alcohol beers in Belgium, and of course, since spirits were no longer on the menu, an increased demand for beer in general. Whereas one of the interesting features of Beligian beer is the high alcohol content of many representatives and the unique means of achieving that (sugars) in quality beer (most brewers that had used sugar in beer previously had done so simply because it was a source of cheap fermentables), I think that this is an important moment in the history of Belgian beer. philosofool (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section from the article and suggested we talk. Yes, your Google search probably did bring you this information because all your searched was for English sources. And, yes, I suspect most of the English sources probably say something similar to this. But, if I wanted to know something, for example, about US history, would I look at a Belgian site to find the answers? Probably not. I would want to look at an American site. Make sense?

I understand your point, but please be aware that Wikipedia policy does not require that a source have any particular national origin in order to be considered authoritative, nor does wikipedia policy regard a source as more authoritative because it shares national origin with its subject. The citation that I gave was to a legitimate source. You cite the number of breweries as evidence of decreased demand for beer, but that evidence only shows that beer production became more centralized, a trend found in almost every nation during the early and middle 20th century. You also cite national production, which shows nothing about national consumption. Your research does not show that the total volume of beer consumed in Belgium was lower during the periods you cite. Also, given that the claim is not only that there was a demand for more beer but also for stronger beer, the fact that less total volume is produced is not great evidence, since people drink less beer when the beer is very strong. Since authoritative sources conflict with the conclusions you have drawn in your original research, I think that you are mistaken in removing them. If you can find a Belgian source that explicitly states that the Belgian semi-prohibition did not effect the brewing industry in these ways, I will be happy to see them. As it stands, your argument is essentially original research, since none of the documents you cite explicitly or logially contradicts the claim in question: the alleged contradiction with your sources is based on an inference of yours that is not clearly merited by your source. On Orignial Research,see WP:NOR. philosofool (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So, let's look at a Belgian site about this, since it is a Belgian question. Let's start here: http://www.hbvl.be/dossiers/-e/eeuw/1919/1919_0.html Since, I assume, you don't understand Dutch, I will translate it for you: through this law it was forbidden to SERVE strong drinks in pubs and consumers who wanted to buy strong drink must buy a minimum of two liters. Drinks made from rum or cognac were exempt from this rule.

Is that an "out lawing on the sale of spirits." Not at all! And here's a site from the Belgian federal government that confirms this requirement (the first site is a Belgian newspaper): http://www.senaat.be/www/?MIval=/publications/viewSTBlok&COLL=H&DATUM=02/16/2006&DOSID=50343770&MINID=214&LEG=3&NR=151&VTYPE=vouid&LANG=nl

So, there was no outlawing of strong drink, but what about the effect on beer? Well, I'm glad you asked! According to figures provided by Nationale Bank and Belgische Brouwers (the trade association of Belgian brewers) (from a link I provided, but was removed by someone, btw), there were in Belgium in 1910, 3349 breweries. In 1920, one year AFTER Wet Vandevelde was enacted, there were 2013 breweries. And in 1930, 11 years after the law, there were 1546 breweries. So far, this law doesn't seem to have had a very positive effect on breweries, has it? As far as beer production, before the war (1910) it was 16,019 (thousand hectoliters), one year after the law it was only 10,408. By 1930, production had increased almost to pre-war level. However, by 1939, it had declined again to 12,488 (thousand hectoliters).

After the first war, there were shortages of men and material for beer making (logical?). This is why sales were down so much. The effects of the war had a far greater influence on beer than Vandervelde. By the early 1930s, there was a financial crisis which accounts for the decline in beer sales again. So, again not Vandervelde.

So, what about this demand for strong beers? Well, Westmalle did in fact create what later became the Westmalle Tripel. However, that was in 1934, 15 years after Vandervelde. If, in fact, Vandervelde was an influence to create stronger beer, why did it take 15 years for a stronger beer to be developed? I would say, because there is no connection between the Vandervelde law and the developement of a stronger beer. If you can find a Belgian site that says something else, I would be most interested to read it.

And why I called my edit "cleanup" instead of "significant alteration": I corrected the article by removing information that was not correct. I still call that a cleanup. Mikebe (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While i'm very impressed with your ability to manipulate statistics to prove your point, your numbers are meaningless. Correlation does not equal causation, and while the brewery numbers declined it likely has nothing to do with Vandervelde. The interesting thing here, to me, is that a number of historians submit Vandervelde as the impetus for the development of strong Belgian ales. Your argument is off base - i'm not suggesting that Vandervelde contributed to the bolstering of Belgian brewing on the whole (in fact there were a number of factors in the early quarter of the 20th century that lead to its decline) simply that it provided motivation to the breweries, via interest in the market, to develop higher ABV beers - beers which did NOT exist in any notable quantity pre-Vandervelde. Casconed (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the above 'cleanups' or whatever, but I am pointing out the annoying habit of a person here to continuously ask for a citation, and when a citation is given, removing it. I would like to point out that the citation given is NOT a personal opinion but a *direct* translation of the Belgian magazine 'Testaankoop', which is an authority in comparing different products. In fact it is THE consumer-protecting agency of Belgium, and its stance of neutrality can not be disputed. The fact that a person doubts the veracity of the citation is not the point here, it clearly is a citation of an external, neutral and public source. Therefor, the citation itself is valid, even when one does not agree with it. To cite yourself: The citation that I gave was to a legitimate source. (see 'The first sentence of the article' below for further comments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List

Here is the list of breweries (that looks quite comprehensive) from List of breweries, an otherwise useless article that I think should be deleted. Justinc 14:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• InBev
• Brouwerij Alken-Maes
• Brouwerij Duvel Moortgat
• Brasserie à vapeur
• Brasserie Augrenoise
• Bières de Chimay
• Brasserie Cantillon
• Brasserie d'Orval
• Brasserie d'Achouffe
• Brasserie de Silly
• Brasserie Dubuisson Frères
• Brasserie Saint-Feuillien
• Brouwerij Haacht
• Brasserie Caracole
• Brasserie La Binchoise
• Brasserie Du Bocq
• Brasserie Ellezelloise
• Brouwerij Liefmans
• Brouwerij Lindemans
• Brouwerij Palm
• Brouwerij Rodenbach
• Brouwerij Sint-Bernardus
• Brouwerij Timmermans-John Martin
• Brouwerij Westmalle
• Brouwerij Westvleteren
• Brasserie de Brunehaut
• Brasserie de l'Abbaye des Rocs
• Brasserie de l'Abbaye du Val-Dieu
• Brasserie de Rochefort
• Brouwerij de Achelse Kluis

Just had a look at List of breweries. It's almost a meta-category at this point. Waitak 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Belgian beers

Shouldn't it be appropriate to include a list of Belgian beers? This webpage http://www.dma.be/p/bier/1_11.htm lists the 1547 brands

Yeah, i think it would be appropriate to do so (in a separate article of course, like a List of Belgian beers that we could for example split by province or by brewery). It is a good idea, but be careful with the lists you find on the web since the "real" list changes from year to year. Furthermore, on the website you give, the diacritics is systematically removed from the beer names. I had some great lists of beers on the net but it's just like i lost it. I could find it back in a few days. Anyway, to begin with this list, we should wait to have at least one more list to compare with. Keep up the good work. Julien Tuerlinckx 12:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bush

Could someone who's more knowledgeable than I am add a page on Bush, please? I think that a reference to the controversy over the name with Anheuser Busch would also be interesting to the readers. (Bush is a wonderful, strong beer brewed by Dubuisson, for those poor, poor souls who've never had the privilege...) Waitak 13:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

After revisiting the Dubuisson page, I've made a redirect from Bush (beer) to Brasserie Dubuisson Frères. Waitak 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Brabant ale

Brabant needs to be added by someone who knows something about it. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Brabant is a province in Belgium (and the Netherlands). What is the beer reference? Mikebe 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was referring to a style of beer called 'Brabant ale'. — goethean ॐ 20:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in the Netherlands and think I am quite familiar with Belgian beer, but I have never heard of a Brabant ale. Can you please name at least one beer in this style? Mikebe 08:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a US microbrew. Domain DuPage by Two Brothers Brewing. The brewer says that he lived in Brabant and he tried to recreate it when he returned home. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Rare Vos by Brewery Ommegang is also a US-made Brabant ale[1]. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that 'Brabant ale' is an American invention. As I said, I have never heard of it in Belgium and the two beers you mention are both American. Furthermore, 'ale' is not a Belgian beer style (by name) and is very rarely used in the name of Belgian beers. You might try to do a little research before posting requests like this in the future. Mikebe 18:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is descended form the marketing of Palm Speciale as "the pride of Brabant". I know of no other examples of "Brabant ale". Koninck is similar but brewed in Antwerp, so this is really a type. Unless lot of people start imitating it, like Duvel. 1Z (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

De Koninck and Palm Speciale are examples of "Speciale belge", a beer sort of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.219.245 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article

The first sentence of the article is outragously false. Take the union of the collection of beligian beers with the collection of british beers; that collection is necessarily more numerous and varied than the collection of the belgian beers. That's to illustrate the point that it's absolutely false and should be changed.

A second very important point is that belgian beer is probably not more numerous and varried than american beer. There are over 3,000see below breweries in america, of which all but about 40 are craft breweries. This first claim of the article heartily needs substantiation in the face of this fact. --philosofool 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to the previous points:

• there are about 130 breweries in Belgium today.
• there were 1451 craft breweries in the U.S. as of 2005; 1415 were craft breweries. This statement serves to correct my own mistake above.

philosofool 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed the contentious statement. It had been reinserted by an IP with a dead link. SilkTork *^YES! 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This first sentence keeps getting reinserted with a link to the homepage of a Belgian magazine. This does not seem like a valid citation, and the first sentence is clearly NPOV, especially given the statistics above. Casconed (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat my paragraph here also, since it's about the citation: I'm not discussing the above 'cleanups' or whatever, but I am pointing out the annoying habit of a person here to continuously ask for a citation, and when a citation is given, removing it. I would like to point out that the citation given is NOT a personal opinion but a *direct* translation of the Belgian magazine 'Testaankoop', which is an authority in comparing different products. In fact it is THE consumer-protecting agency of Belgium, and its stance of neutrality can not be disputed. The fact that a person doubts the veracity of the citation is not the point here, it clearly is a citation of an external, neutral and public source. Therefor, the citation itself is valid, even when one does not agree with it. To cite yourself: The citation that I gave was to a legitimate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Belgian Consumer Reports is your source for this claim? You can't be serious. philosofool (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am and it is. That's what I've been saying all along; it's not some quote of myself or from a blokes' blog; it's from a publicly publicized well-known (well, in Flanders, anyway) consumer protecting magazine. The citation is an exact translation of the citation made in that consumer report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that the above counter-arguments are missing the point; TA did not say that Belgium has the most breweries in total numbers. The amount of breweries, or the total volume of beer produced has nothing to do with the citation. If I say Belgium is the country where the most oldtimers are driving in the streets, that isn't invalidated by saying that in the US there are more cars produced.

So if the number of breweries has nothing to do with the citation, what is the citation for? Frankly, the sentence is false, citation or no, and is NPOV to boot. By what standards of variance do Belgian beers rank the most highly? By what standards of quality are they "high-quality". I won't dispute that the Belgian brewing landscape is varied, the beers are high-quality, or there are a large number, but the statement that the collection is the MOST "varied and numerous" simply isn't true.Casconed (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's literally there. It says 'the most varied and numerous collection of *quality* beers'. I don't know if they mean that in a sense of prize-winning beers (meaning, the most internationally well-regarded beers - like the fact that at least the 3 last years the title of 'best beer in the world' went to Belgium), or maybe they regard a certain %alcohol, or ppt per cl as guidelines...but that's the quotation, and I don't have to analyze or statistically check their claims (even if I had the ability); I'm just giving their citation, and the citation is from a legitimate source, so is valid. As an aside, they could also mean 'compared to the amount of breweries' or '..to the populace of the country'(most likely) or '..to the surface area of Belgium'. The only thing I know for sure it's a direct quote from a independent source. The fact you don't agree with it is something else. If you dispute it, it's for YOU to find citations/sources that contradict the given citation/source.

And in fact, most of these measurements do not change the outcome. For instance, I suspect they mean 'most varied beers compared to the given populace'. Since Belgium has 10 million people, and the USA 250 million, I think it's obvious the sentence is correct (otherwise, they'd have to have more than 3250 breweries in the US).

It seems you don't understand what it is for something to be a primary source, and therefore suitable for reference in the manner you are attempting. In order for a statement, in print or otherwise, to have merit as a citation it must be backed by original research and be made by a reputable source. Your citation fails on two fronts. First, it is not in English, which means the ability of its primary audience to verify it is limited. Secondly, the non-NPOV opinion of random writer in a for-profit magazine is not a good source for a citation. This is, of course, disregarding that the sentence is a stated opinion and is unsuitable for this article to begin with.Casconed (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with that assessment. While english sources are preferred for the english wikipedia, it is nowhere mentioned it is *required*; that would be a silly thing indeed, since all sources in other countries/languages would otherwise be deemed invalid. The whole point of the magazine IS researching and comparing products, and it IS made by a reputable source (see comments above if you have no idea what 'Testaankoop' is). Thus, your first objection fails: nowhere in the rules it is said only english sources are valid, and verification might not be easy, but it certainly isn't impossible, since it's a well known publication in Belgium. In fact, it's perfectly possible to order older magazines on their website: for 8,40 euro + transport expenses (depending where you live) you can order it yourself. It's the February 2008 one you need. Secondly, that it is a non-NPOV statement without any basis is an interpretation of yourself - which is kind of weird, since you (apparently) didn't even read the article. Whether you personally agree with the statement or not is not the issue; the citation is valid, according to the wikipedia rules, even if people disagree with it. Oh, and btw: TA is a NON-profit organisation, so you even got that wrong.

PS.I just re-checked the 'verification' section of the wikipedia, and it seems it is rather you who don't understand what a reliable source means. I quote: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That is exactly what TA is. It also says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So, even if *you* are convinced it's POV, it is still valid as a source-citation. Also, I think it's a bit dubious how you try to let the citation fail on the basis of it being non-english...I've just rechecked that too, and the paragraph is pretty clear that it does not *need* to be an english source. So please don't invent things just to prove a point. The request for a footnote of the original quote is reasonable and acceptable; I will put that up as soon as I've found the February-issue back. I hope the discussion about that citation will thereby be ended.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 

The argument over the citation is missing a larger point, which is the unsuitability of that statement for this article. However, I will draw your eyes to WP:NONENG to point out, explicitly, why this is a bad citation, since you don't seem to understand primary sources generally. It doesn't meet policy. End of story.

Now, onto the sentence itself. As it turns out i HAVE read the article, which is about lack of quality control in Belgian breweries. Nowhere in the article does the author present objective fact about the number or variety of beers, and to cite that article to back a clearly POV sentence is silly. Nevermind the citation-quality, the original argument was about the inappropriateness of the sentence, which you've only sustained by insisting on using a poor source for your citation. It is my view, and the view of several others that that sentence fails from both a POV standpoint and from a verifiability standpoint and therefore should be changed or removed outright.Casconed (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...since you have read the article: do you deny it literary says the citation I gave, yes or no? Do you deny it is said in TA, a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? And it 'originally' was never about 'inappropriateness', it was asked that a citation be given to substantiate the claim made (as can be easily seen in the history of the article). Whether it is substantiated or 'proper' enough (in your or others' opinion) isn't really the point, as is seen in the quote of the wikipedia-rules; the question is, if the quote is verifiable. And it is. We could go on to claim the other doesn't understand what primary sources are all about, but once I make a footnote with the original Dutch text, I'm in total accord with all the rules. Also, might I point to point 2.2 of your own cited policy. I find your contesting the '(in)appropriateness' a bit silly: since it's a statement about Belgium beers, clearly it has relevance about Belgian beer, which the article pertains to. And about your insistence that it is POV: it CLEARLY says the validity of a citation is not about being considered true or not, but of being verifiable. Thus, I repeat my question: is THAT QUOTE in the source I gave? All your other objections (it being non-English, it being 'inappropriate', it being POV..) do not in any way touch the essence of legitimacy of the citation. If the answer is yes (as you know it is, if you have read it), then the citation is valid, even if you contest it's worth. End of story.

The only reason I ever raised an argument about the citation was because you attempted to use it to justify maintaining the outrageously false opening sentence. As it stands, the citation is still a poor citation, and the sentence itself violates WP:NPOV. That exact quote is NOT in the source you gave (as I read it), nor have you offered (per the rules) a legitimate third party translation so that other readers can independently verify it. None of that, matters, however, because that sentence should be removed or changed. As User:philosofool points out below it makes a value judgement and thus has no place in this article, substandard citation or otherwise. Casconed (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then, If I may pray, tell me - since I looked it up myself: what is the translation of "Nergens ter wereld bestaat zo'n grote verscheidenheid aan kwaliteitsbier als in België"? You're doing a fine job in denying everything, and than saying it doesn't matter anyhow, because it's POV and that's it, but you don't offer any sources to prove it *is* POV, while I DO give the source for the citation. As User:philosofool points out above; "You claim that this source is unreliable, but I have yet to see you produce anything but your opinion that it is." He was talking about someone else, but the principle remains the same. I provided the source, if you think it's POV, please provide sources of your own that indicates it is POV and it's not true (because, if it's true, than obviously, it's not POV).

PS. Seen your penchant for semantic pedantry, I've translated the quote more precise, made the sentence into an indisputable fact, and provided the original quote. This is as far as I'm willing to go; I think I've been more than reasonable, thusfar. If you still don't like it, please provide your counter-sources.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 

The citation is still garbage, lacking an independent, reliable, third-party translation. The sentence, especially as the first sentence of the article is still garbage, lacking NPOV. You still obviously don't understand the issues, so maybe it is time to take this to arbitration. Statistics given above and available here http://www.beertown.org/craftbrewing/statistics.html contradict at least one part of the statement, and since the author of said statement provides no data to back his claim, we are left to conclude that it is his opinion. Even when we do examine belgian beer statistics (http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/belgbrew.htm & http://www.beerparadise.be/emc.asp?pageId=630), we are left, as stated above, with numbers that show the claim of extraordinary diversity to be false, as the US alone has more breweries producing more beer. Casconed (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your counterarguments are getting weaker and weaker...I *GAVE* you the Dutch original sentence, so you or anyone else can do a translation yourself, if you think your knowledge of the Dutch/English language is so much greater!. Furthermore: is it *required* to have an independent, third-party translation? Again, you're trying to confuse things, because it clearly states in the rules (and I point you to 2.5 of the non-english sources part): "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Do you deny it says preferred not *necessary*, or not? (You never seem to directly answer to those questions). But hey, don't hold yourself back: be my guest in finding reliable, third party translations of the quote; I doubt they can do better as it stands now. It seems to me it's you who have trouble understanding the rules of wikipedia, maybe we should take this to arbitrage indeed, so it can be put to rest once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the difference between the total number of breweries, the total amount of beers produced, and the most *diverse* collection of beers. (Oh, and btw, you might want to give references/links that actually lead somewhere). Let me give you the explanation that is given by the dictionary: "diverse: of a different kind, form, character, etc." Thus, it handles about DIVERSITY, not TOTAL NUMBERS produced. I noticed the lack of comprehension as to the difference of those two things with you before. Now, let's look at the sources you gave that you claim contraindicate the claim in TA. First, we see the amount of breweries...does that invalidate anything about the diversity of Belgian beer? No. Next, we see the production in hectoliters: has that any bearing on the question whether Belgium has the most amount of diverse beers? No. And lastly, we see the production and export quota of Belgian beer. Does that give a contraindication that there isn't the most diversification among Belgian beers? No.

So, you see, your whole counter-arguments/sources fail in actually showing anything pertaining to the quote (the diversity of Belgian beers). You just don't seem to understand that the greatest amount of diverse beers != the most breweries that produce more beers. I'll explain it even more simple for you, so you can see the error in your reasoning: say, you have two different kinds of beer (a kind of ale and a kind of brown beer) in Belgium. They are brewed in two breweries, and sell only 10 hectoliter. Then, say, you have 3 breweries in the US producing 60 hectoliters, but they only brew a kind of ale. Now, which country has the most diversity in its beers? According to your reasoning, the US, but that is clearly false, because it is not about the total amount of beers, but about the diversification of the beers. Capici?

Given the numbers involved this is the most absurd counter-argument you have offered yet. In order for your reasoning here to hold up, each brewery in the US would have to produce only one type of beer, and each belgian brewery would have to produce at least five unique beers. Since neither of those things is true, it is not verifiably true that Belgium has a more diverse selection. That statement remains an opinion at best, and has no place in this article.

Furthermore I will point you to philosofool's original point - create a collection containing all the beers of Belgium and Britain. Necessarily, the collection of Belgian beers alone can not be more diverse than the union of Belgian and British beers, even if all the breweries in Britain produce the same beer (which is demonstrably false). Casconed (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

HUH? Talking about absurdity indeed... It's about the collection of BELGIAN beers! That means FROM BELGIUM, if you might fail to grasp that. Of course a collection of britisch beers and belgian beers would have even more diversity, but than it wouldn't be about belgian beer anymore, would it? This strange argument is completely nonsensical. Nowhere is the quote saying anything about a collection made up of different countries; it only speaks about belgian beer, which means it compares the diverse belgian beers to the diversity of beers in other countries. Did you not comprehend that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence claims that Belgian beer is the MOST diverse collection in the world. As I've shown twice, and you admit above, that sentence is demonstrably false. There is simply no argument here - the union of the collection of Belgian beer with any other collection makes a new collection which is more diverse than that of Belgian beers alone. Please note the quote says nothing about limiting collections to single countries, or excluding combined collections from comparison. The translation as you provided it makes a claim that the collection of Belgian beer stands alone as the most diverse collection. This is false, POV-laden, and has no place in this article.Casconed (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So, wait...you mean you actually understood from the sentence that a collection talking about "BELGIAN beers" indicated it is being compared to a collection of, say, 50 other countries TOGETHER? Are you daft, or simply being obnoxious? You ARE being pedantic, in any case, since you very well know what is meant. But fine, I'll adjust it if you are trying to make a point out of such silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems Philosofool doesn't agree with you, since he undid the change I did to accommodate your pedantic point. Seems he DID get and understood the implicit comparison that it's about the collection of beer per country.

Well, now your translation does not agree with the citation, since the cited work claims it is the most diverse collection, period. I am being pedantic, but the point i'm trying to make is that it is not relevant to the rest of the article that a Belgian consumer research magazine makes that claim, any more than it would be relevant for the head of the American Craft Beer Association to claim otherwise. It is simply a poor beginning to an article which is otherwise coming along nicely. As it stands I don't read philosofool's edit as disagreeing with me, he was simply fixing your poor choice of syntax. Better that the article is at least well-written for now, until we can fix the glaring factual errors. Casconed (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see he made it into 'national', which is indeed better (but, hey, it was getting late and you were getting on my nerves ;-) ). The Dutch citation (you can read Dutch, right?) DID use the word 'Belgium' in it, but I figured that was already implied with 'Belgian beer'; I wasn't really counting on people being deliberately obtuse in reading the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about different KINDS of beer. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% or more of the breweries in the US brew ale. I don't think they brew much other types...maybe some brown beer as well. However, Belgium produces ALL those kinds of beers, plus some that are only brewn in Belgium, like the Flemish Red, and the Trappist beers. But, hey, if you can show me a reliable source that indicates the US brews more types of beer than Belgium, I'm willing to adopt my quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a somewhat pedantic point not really germane to the present discussion, since i think all of it turns on what is meant by "diverse" and "high quality", American breweries are certainly not Trappist, but Trappist is really a trade mark, not a style. Some american breweries emulate belgian styles and types of beers. Beers fermented with Brettanomyces are not common, but there are a few. Much more common are american beers that hope to immitate trippel, dubbel and strong belgian ales. Brewery Ommegang, located in New York, was started and I think (I would have to double check) partially owned by Moortgat of Duvel fame, and their Ommegang is in the style of Dubbel; they also make a Saisson. Sour ale is also uncommon in america, but I believe that there are a few. Though I have no resources to back up this claim, my impression is that Belgian inspired ale is perhaps the fastest growing segment of american craftbrewing, which has mostly been dominated by styles of British origin. American produces far more british style ales than britain, since most american craft breweries focus on those types of ale; real ale has gotten to be somewhat popular in some brewpubs in the US. Wheat beers are common as well. American beer enthusiasts love strong stout, barleywine and IPA. The latter has particularly american interpretations and at least one british author I know of speaks very highly it, going almost to the point of saying it's better than british stuff by the same name. No beer I know of resembles the best american IPA in the use hops; if ever you have a chance to try it, taste an AleSmith IPA. There are several craft pilsners in america, some oktoberfest and even Bock. Spiced beers, fruit beers and similar sorts of things abound; american breweries have added jalepenos, vanilla beans and prickly pears to beer. philosofool (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The first statement is a value judgment because it involves the notion of a high-quality beer. What counts as high-quality beer is obviously a matter of significant disagreement. It doesn't matter who said that Belgian beer is high quality, the statement isn't of the right kind to be NPOV: see A simple forumulation (of neutral point of view).

There are lots of published sources in which you will find it asserted that stealing is wrong, that French food is the best in the world, or that Shakespeare is a poet superior to all others. Those statement cannot be regarded, despite the knowledge of their expositors, as statements of fact rather than value. "Belgian beer is the most diverse collection of high-quality beer in the world" falls into that category.

Moreover, the relative merits of belgian beer should not be the main subject of this article and so claims about it's relative merits that would be NPOV (e.g. "Many books about beer praise Belgian Ale") should be included later in the introduction or in a later section. philosofool (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that the first sentence now reads "most varied and numerous", which is even worse that "most diverse". I'm quite sure that most Germans, Enlgishmen and Americans would like to object to the claim that it is the most numerous, and for good reason, considering that all of those countries produce vastly more brands of beer than Belgium. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for singing the praises of your favorite things. philosofool (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some improvements to the first sentence as it sits, but I do not agree that it should be in here. I am leaving part of it in as it seems to be a topic that was in a heated discussion and not resolved. I removed the passive "It is claimed" as that type of indecisive language does not belong in an encyclopedia. Next I changed the link to the actual page with the quote. Finally, I removed the anything not NPOV. The article gives no numbers and the sentence did not match Google's translation. Please remember this if the consensus disagrees with me and you decide to revert the last edit I made to not to revert the first two.

There was a complaint about a lack of a third party translation above. It seems you have to be a member to get the whole article. For the blurb you can read it wasn't hard to find a site to give me a basic understanding. Third party translation:

From Google

From the translation of the page asking you to login it seems that Test-Achats produces magazines called Budget & Law and Test Health (when translated). So this does seem to be a testing site similar to consumer reports. At least on the surface. Menu options include Shop, Prices, Benefits, Forum, Jobs, Contact, and Test-Achats Rss feed among others. With categories of Auto & Transport, Communications & Multimedia, Sustainable consumption, Money & insurance, Health Care, Home & Garden, Lifestyle & wellbeing, Law & Taxation, and Food. These translations were done by a computer so some items might not seem to fit because of this translation. The front page was talking about the IPod, notebook computers, New Years planning, and mobile phones when I went to it. If consumer reports made the same claim for U.S. beer without the stats many here would not call CR out on it. They would trust they had those stats somewhere due to their reputation and their consistent claim of their own NPOV due to not accepting advertiser money.

Still some would and they should as it would be easy to include at least some basic numbers that brought the article writer to that conclusion. Most of us will not be able to read this article. I don't know in other English Speaking countries, but I cannot find this magazine at the local store, community, or university library. Without access to the full article we can't verify that the statement isn't just a claim. That there are some type of numbers to back up this claim. Without these numbers the validity of the source is in question and the statement is against NPOV. With how much this first sentence sounds like a point of view the source really needs to be without reproach and it currently is not. Abernaki (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, Test-Aankoop is a very well known (at least in Belgium) NPOV consumer-report magazine. In fact, together with their French equivalent, it is THE consumer report of Belgium, and if it's not in your store, community or library, it's only the fault of those institutions. (That said, I'm not sure I would find, say, an UK consumer report in my country, so maybe it's normal.) In any case, if validation of the existence really has to be proved by physical means: it's possible on their website to order their magazine (even an archived one). As for the details of the claim (which isn't all that unlikely, if it's in comparison, say, per capita of that country): I guess you could ask for clarification by email on their website. Seen their excellent record, no doubt they could clarify it.

Style vs. country overview

Judging by the article, Belgian beer isn't a style, as there seems to be a wide number of native and imported styles produced in the country. I think the article should be moved out of the beer style category and the styles that redirect here should be developed into full articles if they are significant, and deleted if they aren't. Thetrick 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The German beer article strikes me as a good model to follow.

Thetrick 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

This article has used American spelling since its third day of existance when it became a non-stub. Please read WP:ENGVAR section "Retaining the existing variety" before making wholesale spelling changes to an article with a long history of consistently using a single spelling varient.

Also the web site for "De Koninck beer" spells it "Koninck". VMS Mosaic 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Per our discussion on your talk page, the assertion that this article has used American spelling since it stopped being a stub is false as it was inconsistent and full of misspellings then, just as it was full of inconsistency as of 17 July 2007, the version before I edited it. Claiming that this article has a long history of consistently using a single spelling variant is just ignoring what was in the article at that point. Further, it seems a bit much for someone who misspells 'existence' and 'variant' to comment on anyone else's spelling. Not only that, I corrected the spelling of "De Koninck" from "De Konninck" and accusing me of being the one who introduced the misspelling is just wrong. MKoltnow 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the 'Koninck' issue. I apparently got my edit pages out of order. I am not as careful with spelling when editing on talk pages, so I do tend to make some mistakes. Unless I missed something other than the non-variant misspellings, I see no distinctly British spellings on the first non-stub page. The only words I see which have distinct British variants are 'license' and 'flavor', both of which are spelled the American way. In any case, I have better things to do, so since you appear to believe strongly that the correct spelling variant is British, I will not revert it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VMS Mosaic (talk • contribs).

Actually I could not care less which variant of English is used, as long as it is consistent. I just objected to the revert and poor rationale associated therewith. Thank you for the apology. I will bury the hatchet. MKoltnow 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to get back to this, but I finally made the spelling consistent. VMS Mosaic 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Acquisition of Belgian beer in America

I think that moving this reference to the "international" section from the "Belgian Outlets" section is an edit which is very reasonable. For some reason, this edit, among others, was reverted. If no one can explain why, I will go ahead and put my recasted version back in the international section. MKoltnow 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean up needed, very POV

This article needs a major overhaul. It currently reads like an opinionated piece of original research with very little sourcing. Considering the amount that has been written on Belgian beers I would have thought someone interested in the subject would take the time to do the needed research and make a decent stab at this rather than let it continue in this opinionated state! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. There's a lot of belgian beer worship in this article. It's understandable as there is some mighty fine ale coming out of belgium (there's also a lot of stella), but it represents a POV that not everyone will share. I for one place several belgian ales among my favorites, but they sit beside some British Old Ales, American IPAs, pale ales, stouts and, well, you get the point. The worship of beligian variety has even caused some factual inaccuracies, such as the claim that Trappist ales have little in common: Achel, Westvleteren, and Westmalle all use the same yeast, which is produced in the lab at Westmalle; Achel also gets their hops from Westmalle.70.171.199.139 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. I assume you did not notice that the remark to which you responded is one year old. There have been a lot of changes in that time. Furthermore, I disagree with your statements above. Beer is not a chemistry experiment. Having the same or similar ingredients in two beers does not mean they will be similar or even have "anything in common." In fact, I don't know whether you are aware, but there are some American breweries that also use yeast from Westvleteren, yet no one says they have anything in common with the Trappist ale. Mikebe (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is highly POV and if it was so a year ago, the problem is yet to be rectified. The first sentence is just wrong and the citation takes the reader to a commercial website with a picture of a woman's ass, and it isn't even in English. Having yeast in common certainly is having something in common! As stated, the article is misleading because it gives the impression that not tasting the same is having nothing in common. And certainly those American breweries are said to have something in common with the Trappists, namely, they make beer that tastes more similar to Trappist beer than other beer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosofool (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the writing is not NPOV, but I do not see how the first sentence is wrong once the flowery language has been removed. Secondly, I also agree that "having in common" is probably not the most accurate way of describing the difference between the Trappist beers. Not only do they have the ingredients "in common", they are also all made in Trappist breweries and they are all located in Belgium. But that really misses the main point, which is that they are quite independent of each other when it comes to making beer and the differences are far greater than the similarities. If they have so much "in common", how could Chimay have become what it is? Mikebe (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with the fist sentence: the phrase "high-quality" is POV; which objective measure of diversity should be used will be a matter of controversy and by a number of standards, Beligian beer is not the leader. Overall, I think this article needs to tone down on the radness of Belgian beer. I'm not debating the point that Belgian beer is awesome, but the article (1) makes like that is the most important fact to convey about it and (2) even though I admit that it's a fact, it is an unverifiable one, and so isn't appropriate to an encyclopedic article.philosofool (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would change that to "highly regarded" since there are many sources that will support that. What does "radness" mean? Othewise, I think the article needs to be "toned-down" in order to meet NPOV. Mikebe (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that this solves the problem, since there will be many standards of "highly regarded" and which standard you choose affects whether Belgian beer is indeed the diverse highly regarded beer. The accuracy of the factual claim turns on which selection of the POV "highly regarded" you choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosofool (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation Issues

There are several citations in this article that direct the reader to a site that is not in English. This violates Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID. These should be changed to "citation needed" flags or replaced with citations of sources in English.

In a moment, I'm going to remove a citation to the first sentence of this article. The claim in question is disputed by wikipedia editors and regarded as potentially POV. The current citation is a non-english source, see WP:RSUE and note in particular this portion

Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content.

The present citation is not exactly illegitimate, but it is wikipedia policy for English Wikipedia that English language sources are preferable. Moreover, that page doesn't look like it's even really about beer. philosofool (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm...it's about BELGIUM beer. It's a direct translation. I gave the exact name of the source, the month of publising, and the page. And the page is most definitaly about belgium beer, which makes me think you didn't read it at all.

"dominated"?

The article currently says InBev and Alken-Maes "dominate" Belgian beer production. For the figures I found, all pils (all brands) in Belgium is around 70 percent of the market. My question is: is 70 percent dominating? (Especially considering that there are other, smaller companies, included in that figure.) Mikebe (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Inbev and Alken-maes also have other beers except pils (lager)? I thought they had. It would depend on the other % marketshare of those beers, I think. Also, I'm not sure what percentage 'dominant' would be...maybe when the rules/laws for handling a monopoly kicks in? I'm not quite sure what the european limit is, though: 70, 75, 80%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.64.17 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted the 70 percent for pils because I can't find on Inbev's site information on market share for their other beers. However, also, the 70 percent is not only Inbev and Alken-Maes, it includes all brands of pils. I still think "dominated" is too strong and will try to change it. If you have any ideas for a better way to write it, please post it. Mikebe (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)