Talk:Beer/Archive 3

message: I archieved the old discussion as it contained lots of old stuff that wasn't really a part of the current project.  As you can see, the GA review remains a part of the current talk page.  This is for the obvious reason: as we continue to edit and improve the Beer article, we want to keep the GA review in mind. Indeed, responding to the GA review should be the first priority for this article.
There are a couple of things that I have noticed that I think detract from this article that aren't mentioned in the GA review but I think probably contribute to the GA review's assesment.
*This article is unsympathetic to bad beer.  Unsurprisingly, it's pretty clearly written by people who like good beer, but that leaves the Bud and Heineken quality stuff underrepresented in the article, espcially given the degree to which it is over represented in the market place. This article has a duty to represent that stuff in a POV-free way. I know it hurts to talk about bud like it deserves the name beer, but we have to.
*The article strays from being general in a lot of places.  On this point:
**Remember that this is an encycopedia, not a book of trivia. Trivia, no matter how interesting, or on topic, or cool, is still trivia.  Trivia is inappropriate to an encyclopedia.  Statistics should be informative about the topic of beer in a general way.  "The most hops ever used in a beer was 32 lbs. in a barrel" is not general.
**It's okay for exceptions to remain un-noted.  A lot of times this article decends into lengthy caveats, or mentions this one beer by this one brewery in this one corner of the brewing world that is an exception to a rule that applies to every other beer ever.  That creates a really awkward paragraph that doesn't really serve the point of an article whose purpose is to inform in a general way.
**Longer is not always better.  Some of the sections in this article can probably be trimmed and streamlined.
**Use "See main article: [XXXX]"--using more specific articles in wikipedia is a good way to include information that makes particular sections of this article too specific or unweildly.
*There are some sections that just need a little re-writing and touch up, where additional good information has been added, probably over the course of several edits, and the result has become jerky presentation.
Now, let's get on to improving this article wherever we can.philosofool 18:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this page

message: I renamed the section "culture" to "beer and society". I move "health effects" to a subsection of "beer and society" rather than making it it's own section. I also moved "vessels" to "serving" as that seems like the most appropriate place for that topic.
I think the renaming has some good advantages.  First off, it's a little more specific that "culture", which is a little vague.  Also, it incorporates the issue of beer and health, since health issues related to beer are a public health concern and hence a social concern.  That helps to streamline the page.
This section does need a lot of work. I make some suggestions below and invite others.
*Beer and excess consumption, including alcoholism, should be but is not included here.  Remember that this should be an even handed presentation, not a defense of beer as "less nasty" than other alcoholic beverages or an attempt to downplay excess consumption as a social ill. A fair discussion of temperance movements would be good in this space. 
*Economics of beer can be discussed here. How much is consumed, how large is the market. This data is difficult to collect at the international level, so data regarding representative countries would be acceptable.
*Beer and religion.  Alcohol has been a part of many religious practices. Specific information on the use of beer in religious practice would be very interesting. Also, there are many religions that forbid the use of alcohol. Do any of them treat beer differently, or especially?
Oops--forgot to sign that a few days ago: philosofool 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beer and Society

message: I would like to edit the section on strength to read as follows.  Please offer suggestions and objections here. (This is a pretty significant overhaul of the strength section, so I don't want to do it without running it by people first.) I would also like to change the section title to "Alcoholic Strength", since "strength" is a bit coloquial.  Other title suggestions are welcome.
:The content of alcohol in beer is less than that of wine or distilled spirits.  Beer ranges from less than 3% alcohol by volume (ABV) to over 12% ABV.  Particular styles of beer have a range of alcoholic strength that is common for them; pale lagers that most consumers are familiar with fall in the range of 4-6%.  Some exceptional beers have reached over 20% ABV, however, this is not typical of any style of beer.  
:The alcohol in beer comes from the fermentation of sugars that are produced during mashing.  The quantity of sugar in the wort and the variety of yeast used to ferment the wort determine the amount of alcohol in the final beer. Most of the sugar is derived from the process of mashing, however, sugar is sometimes added directly to the wort. Other ingredients in beer have no effect on the quantity of alcohol in the beer.
I like this better than the previous section because it focuses on general facts rather than minutia that look like a Guiness Book of Records entry. Also, it reads like a section rather than a list a fact about ABV.
philosofool 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Revision of the "Strength" Section

message: I recently edited the lead paragraph of this section. It now reads Beer is made by brewing. The essential stages of brewing are mashing, sparging, boiling, fermentation and packaging. Most of these stages can be accomplished in several different ways, but the purpose of each stage is the same regardless of the method used to achieve it.
I would like to use this lead to re-write the current section on brewing. It has gotten a bogged down in details like precise temperatures, durations, dangers of getting to hot and the like. Moreover, I feel that differences in types of mashing and so forth are inessetial to understanding beer from the ordinary perspective, and discussing mashing as having a purpose and how that purpose is accomplished allows one to avoid decending into details that won't really be beneficial in a general article about beer. These details should be included in the brewing article instead. I think each section should also be done in a paragraph rather than list format, with one paragraph for each essential portion of the mash process. Listing isn't really appropriate here, as what's given is not a list. Here's a rough version of a revision for the section on mashing.
:Mashing is the first stage of brewing. In it, the brewer manipulates the time an temperature of a mixture of water and a starch source, known as a mash, in order to convert starches to fermentable sugars. The mash goes through one or more stages of being raised to a desired temperature and left at the temperature for a period of time. During each of these stages, enzymes in the starch source produce compounds needed for fermentation and further mashing, including the fermentable sugars.  The number of stages required in mashing depends on the starch source used to produce the beer.  Most malted barley used today requires only a single stage.
To repeat, I want to edit this section into a paragraph like the one above for each of the major portions of the brewing process (mashing, sparging, boiling, fermenting, and packing.) Objections etc. welcome.  philosofool 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed edits: Brewing

message: Neither Kumiss nor pulque are technically beers, since there is no starch involved in their production. Both the mare's milk which becomes kumiss and the aguamiel which becomes pulque are sugar-rich.
--- DrGaellon 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the heads up. philosofool 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This Wikipage states up top, "...and distilled beverages are not considered to be beer." However there are examples in this section of distilled drinks (i.e. soju from Korea). Wouldn't it be better to define beer and then stand by that? Soju is akin to a very, very rough homemade vodka. Why is it then included on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.79.62.21 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-beers

message: Firstly, why is the main photo of someone's personal collection of bottled beers, rather than a foaming pint or stein? It's tacky, and an amateur photo taken under poor lighting. The second photo is ridiculous; the photographer has a friend in the photo clearly for laughs. Beer has nothing to do with the grinning cad in the left of the picture. It needs a new one.
Jackmont, Feb 25, 2007.
:Fine points all. Editors are encouraged to find better photos.  Recommended are those without any possible marketting slant (i.e. no labels or names and avoid something that is obviously, for example, a pint of guiness.) --philosofool 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can call people 'grinning cads' at will. Indeed I am aware of this chap.  Infact he used to work for the King and Barnes brewery until it closed.  Beers are his trade. He was a brewer. His name is Gareth, Gareth the previous Brewer. But he buys, arranges, displays and sells beery comestibles.  OJS April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the first ("main") image in this article indeed needs to show beer, not just beer bottles (compare with wine or port wine, for example). At least two attempts at doing this have been reverted. Thoughts? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. The current picture (the bottles) is pointless and amateur. I looked on Flickr and found some possibilities here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theimpaler/sets/72057594142922421/ Of course, we'll need to get permission before we can use one. Mikebe 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: This section needs some improvement.  Here are problems I'm noticing:
*There's a tendency to downplay beer styles and it sounds sometimes as if the difference between stout and pilsner is insignificant. That's not good. This article should try to emphasize that beer is a genus rather than a species of drink. We don't need to be heavy handed about the significance of styles--a controversial topic--in order to present, for example, Guinness and Miller Genuine Draft as different kinds of beer.
*The section reads like on of those entries where lots of people have contributed good information without making sure that the information coheres and reads well.  For example, it would be good if the section on ales and the section on lagers exhibited parellel structure, so that if one starts out about temperature, then talks about esters, then discusses representative ales/lagers, the other does as well.  And where departure from parallel structure is warranted, good flagging will help. For example, because lager is much newer as a popular style than ale, we know more about the history of lager.  Here, a good move to keep things parallel would be to make the history sections their own paragraphs.
*The dark and light section seems to me to over emphasize color as a part of beer style.  Very different beers can resemble each other in color (British bitter and altbier, for example, or pale IPAs and Pilsners), and I think that this section encourages a common misperception that dark beers are alike
I like the emphasis on the difference between ale and lager, in part because that's pretty uncontroversial but also because I think "What's the difference between beer and ale?" is a really common (and really kinda misguided) question, one that I would hope this article helps answer.
I propose getting rid of the semi-intro on "categorizing by yeast" and simply make this a clear part of ale, lager and lambic, with perhaps one sentence in the lead to avoid redundancy in the sub-sections.
Anyway, all this amounts to slightly vague suggestions for revision, and I'm looking for feedback on other things in this section that need repair and objections to the above (because I don't want to start editing and find myself reverted becaue everyone thinks I'm being done!) --philosofool 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I want to discourage anyone, but I think that if anything is done that this section should be shortened and the discussion taken up in earnest on the beer styles page.  One paragraph for each of ale, lager, and lambic, and then an paragraph or two on color that reflects better the flavor and body variations that differing colors reflect.  Thetrick 01:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving Beer Styles section

message: The article says drinking a moderate amount of beer is healthy. How much is a moderate amount? Thanks for all help given! Jecowa 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent study I saw defined moderate consumption as 2-4 beers a day for men, 1-2 beers a day for women.  —Wrathchild (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. 75.21.17.68 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be a bit more precise, the article that Wrathchild refers to says 2-4 or 1-2 "drinks" per day, not beers... it may not be true that drinking only beer would be the same as drinking a variety of kinds drinks, and in particular I would suspect that the Italian drinkers in this study might have included a fair bit of wine in their diet.  It might also be worth considering that the same article also says the US standard is 2 or 1 drinks per day, i.e. at the low end of the ranges in the Italian study. Brianlucas 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation in all things 

message: I'm not sure that 'the starch source is steeped in water' is quite specific enough. There needs to be something about how the starch is converted to sugars prior to fermentation in the intro. Remember that many people won't get past the introduction and at the moment it is misleading (suggesting that starch is fermentable). I'm going to change it. Feel free to revert it if I have offended anyone. 163.1.143.187 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small introduction wording change 

message: :Alcoholic beverages fermented from non starch sources such as grape juice (wine) or honey (mead), and distilled beverages are not classified as beer.
Sake is fermented from a starch source (rice), isn't it? So is it a kind of beer according to this article? Marnanel 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sake 

message: As often happens, an absolute statement jumped out at me:
flavour stability and freshness of filtered beer is the same for canned and bottled products
So I checked the footnote #22, and it is contradictory:
The various lubricants, coatings and paints used to produce and seal the can are potential sources of off-flavor. While these elements rarely impact canned beer, they require careful monitoring and quality control on the part of the brewer.
Broodlinger 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adjusted that section slightly, and placed the relevant part of the source into the footnote. I think the finer details of the discussion, especially as they "rarely impact canned beer", are best saved for the Beverage can article. SilkTork 12:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cans vs Bottles 

message: I am unconvinced that beer is definitively world's oldest alcoholic beverage. It seems that mead or naturally fermented juice would have been developed earlier than beer, which is more complex in even the most basic manufacture. Wine can be made essentially by leaving out juice too long. -Superbeecat 01:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldest alcoholic beverage 

message: In the introduction it states that beer is carbonated, but surely there are several types which are not? Unusual Cheese 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several types which are not artificially carbonated. 1Z 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it does say that beer is carbonated in the introduction. However, it is true that most beer is carbonated, either naturally or through force-carbonation. Though not all beer is noticeably carbonated. There is a small mention of carbonation in the brewing section. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbonated

message: I don't really understand the whole process, but this article strikes me as comprehensive, well-written, and well referenced. Whatever problems existed previously have been taken care of. Somebody should make the nomination, I think. <eleland/talkedits> 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First we need to get through the Good article nomination process. In order to pass that, we need to work on the citation templates, and certain sections need more references. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sections - like History - need more attention. There's no rush. The article is growing, but it's still some way from being a FA. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like a featured article to me. 

message: I've seen a few edit skirmishes now on BC vs. BCE, one of which ended with User:RepublicanJacobite noting that BCE and CE are the preferred terms. This is fine by me, but I just want to make sure that this is true or somehow verifiable. Dunkelweizen 12:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would be correct. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In academic circles, I do not believe there is any debate on the issue.  CE/BCE are the preferred terms. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a place for political correctness. BC and AD are the terms that have been used historically for hundreds of years. We need not censor this factGee Emm Christlur 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This hasn't anything to do with political correctness.  Check your facts before you go running off at the mouth.  The commonly-accepted terminology in academia is BCE/CE.  That is a fact, sir. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, CE/BCE are relatively recent terms. However, they're widely accepted in academic circles unless you're discussing religion or related topics. Also, from the MOS: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't BC used first in this article? I believe someone changed it to BCE...if so it must be changed back according to the MOS Gee Emm Christlur 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point. There is a clear consensus for the use of CE/BCE on this article (based upon its use in academia), and that's the way it's going to stay. The MOS simply states that you shouldn't change it without a good reason to. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're missing the point. MOS states that BOTH are acceptable within Wikipedia, regardless of "academia standard". The public by far uses AD/BC, so why isn't that of importance? Academia usage does not rule Wikipedia...and you've still provided no proof of widespread academic usage Gee Emm Christlur 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am happy that this discussion has taken place. The consensus seems to favor BCE/CE. Gee Emm Christlur, your allegation of "political correctness" seems to suggest that the use of "BCE" and "CE" is motivated by a desire to avoid offense at the expense of truth. This is not what is happening here. As names for times, the two terms are essentially synonymous, and the consensus-preferred term for this article avoids dragging Jesus's name around to place beer-historical events on a timeline. What, to some, is "PC," is often simple politeness to others. As for the widespread academic usage of "CE," a good bit of thumbing around in a university library should satisfy your curiosity. You might also read the Wikipedia article Common Era, under "Usage." Dunkelweizen 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's your opinion, now isn't it?  And who said anything about conventional wisdom?  We are talking about consensus amongst editors.  It has naught to do with political correctness. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as your words are your opinion.  The use is only about 250 years old.  So it is the consensus now, but not always.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BC vs. BCE, etc.

message: Is there a To-Do list for this article or project?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I suppose one could be added. The primary problems with this article, as far as I can tell, have to do with lack of references in certain sections and poor formatting of existing references, a task I've been working on. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List 

message: WHY IS THIS PAGE LOCKED?????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the page's log.  Deli nk (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been semi-protected due to vandalism. Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Semi-protection expired. Figures. If it persists, we can re-request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm getting tired of the persistent vandalism, semi-protection re-requested. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Detranscluded as Pensil didn't request a specific edit along with his use of editprotected. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question