Talk:Belgian Strong Dark Ale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Beer on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Beer Portal
Redirect This article has been rated as Redirect-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Granted, I started this article, but does anyone know of a difference betweel a Belgian Strong Dark and a Quadrupel? Both are Belgian Beer, dark, and have roughly the same alcohol range 8%-12% vs 9%-13%.Beakerboy 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion nomination

This article has no relation to fact. Belgian Dark is not a beer style, as the article, in fact, states. What is it then? Furthermore, the examples given are invalid: Unibroue is a Canadian brewery, not Belgian, and Chimay Grand Reserve is simply a bottle size. Chimay bleu is in the Trappist style and lies somewhere between a tripel and barley wine. For proof of this, please consult: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_biermerken#C and look for Chimay Blauw (Dutch spelling). As that page correctly demonstrates, this is a Trappist beer, not a "Belgian Dark". Mikebe 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • As this is not a style recognised in its supposed country of origin, I would vote for the article´s deletion. But this would only be interpreted as further proof that Mikebe are one in the same. If I fail to vote, it would most likely be interpreted as a tacit admission that I and Mikebe are the same person. So I abstain under protest. A victory for democracy.Patto1ro 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting that, if http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie:Biersoort is the all knowing list of styles, why isn't Dubbel on the list. Also, you are incorrect about Chimay Grande Reserve being a bottle size. Maybe it's only in the states, but here the large bottles of Chimay all have different names on them, Blue is Grande Reserve, Red is Premere, and Tripel is Cinq Cents. Removal of this article will require reclassification of several beers in wikipedia to a new style. I vote no for deletion. I would, however, vote to retain the article, stating that the style was "invented" by the BJCP and provide info as to what other style names should be used in real-world (non homebrew) circles. Beakerboy 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My friend, I find it very strange that you think you know more than someone who is local to these beers. As I demonstrated to you, your Tripel page was full of errors. I hope you are happy with it now. I find it pretty insulting that a foreigner tells me I don't know my own culture. Enjoy: http://chimay.com/en/chimay_blue_220.php Mikebe 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Trois Pistoles is certainly a dark beer in the Belgian style, and that is what is intended by the name of this article. You are correct, as a "style" it is far to wide, but as a "beer class" it can include such beers as Trois Pistoles and Chimay Blue or Grande Reserve (you're half-correct, as the link you point to basically says the beer is called Grand Reserve in the large bottle, not that the bottle size itself is called Grande Reserve, which would intuitively make no sense as the red and white-labeled large bottles are not also called Grande Reserve, but have their own names as well, so it can be considered to have two names, although I'd certainly call it "Blue" myself). As for comments about being "local", I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who know more about Belgian beer than Belgians (heck, don't lots of Belgians drink some crap called Jupiler?). That said, you obviously know a good deal about beer, but try to show that in your edits, don't make what is almost a personal slight in your appeal to geography. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep saying the tripel article is "My article" As the discussion page and history clearly show, I only made a few edits to the article, and asked for consensus opinion before changing anything. I don't claim to know more than anyone else. In fact I've asked you for recommended reading on how to familiarize myself more with Belgian beer. I've only read books by Michael Jackson and tasted dozens of beers from Belgium. I know you are a member of a Belgian Beer consumers organization (Zythos). If your argument stems from protecting europeans from "misinformation" about Belgian beer than by all means ADD that info to these articles instead or outright deletions of content. I know Unibroue is not a Belgian brewery, but their beers are all Belgian style beers. I'll modify this article later in the week and hopfully you will like the result. My statements have shown that I'm quite willing to be flexable as to the content of this article. Tell me...What "style" is Chimay Blue? It's not a Tripel, It's not a Quadrupel, Barleywine is british, but it is dark, strong, and Belgian. If you have a better name, start an article that you feel is more accurate and I'll be happy go along with it!Beakerboy 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that, but since you were the one who seemed to have taken responsibility for the page, in terms of asking for help, I just referred to it that way. I certainly didn't mean anything negative by doing that. BTW, it's not just that I am a member of Zythos or any other organisation, it's also that Belgian, Dutch and German beers are the only beers I drink. The only American beers we can get here are Bud or Miller (in Germany). I go to beer festivals in Belgium and Germany whenever I have a chance because it gives me the opportunity to try beers that I can't get at home and to talk to local people about developments there. Zythos, like CAMRA, is an organisation of local chapters. The local chapter I belong to has meetings of presentations/tastings with people who know more about Belgian beer than I will probably ever learn. Jef van den Steen, the author I had written to you about and whose book I referenced in the article, came to my chapter several times and gave talks to us about the history of beer and brewing in Belgium (with bottles of beer) that were just thrilling -- the man just knows so much! But, I've had enough here. I won't be contributing any more because it has become a battle instead of a collaboration. Actually, I haven't had so many problems with you, but people like Ozgood seem to have a talent for driving good people away. In conclusion, I highly recommend the Tim Webb book I referenced in the article -- it's in English and he knows Belgian beer very well. I wish you luck with the project and hope that some other foreigners will come here and the articles will become international rather than American-centric as they are now and that factual information will replace some of the nonsense that is here now. Wikipedia is a great concept and it is sad to see it (the beer articles in particular) misused as it is now. Mikebe 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can second (or should I say refirst as he and I are obviously the same person) what Mikebe says about Tim Webb - he's not only very knowledgeable about Belgian beer but also writes very well. He visits Belgium regularly and is has very good contacts in the Belgian beer world with both brewers, writers and consumers. I'll mention this discussion when I see him on Thursday at the British Guild of Beer Writers annual dinner. Though when he hears of the response Mikebe and I have had to our efforts in trying to improve the accuracy of the wikipedia beer articles, I can't imagine he would want to get involved himself.Patto1ro 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the policies of Wikipedia, product of my deranged mind, created for the sole purpose of driving away those who would deny common usage over their preferred terms. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have yet to answer my question. What is the correct style name for Chimay Blue? You say it's trappist because that's what is stated at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_biermerken#C However, that list claims that all Chimay beer is trappist. Does that mean that red is not a dubbel and white is not a tripel? If you expect me to trust your sources they must be consistant with your statements. Again...What is the correct style type for Chimay blue? That's all I'm asking.Beakerboy 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I certainly did answer your question: thanks to the behaviour of Osgood and some of the others here, I have stopped contributing to WP. Osgood and his friends apparently cannot understand the benefits of having people here from different cultures and countries, and I hope my withdrawal will demonstrate to you and any others who read this the loss to WP that Osgood and Goethean's actions bring. Good luck. Mikebe 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, now you're being outright ridiculous. Nobody said (or believes) that contributions from people from other countries are not helpful (they're not just helpful, they're essential to a well-rounded encyclopedia). What I am saying, however, is that your (or the Belgian, or the European) opinion on what is an is not a beer style cannot be forced upon Wikipedia as though other conceptions do not exist. This article itself is a perfect example of that. It clearly exists as a style in a major section of the world, and is of added importance to the English Wikipedia because that portion of the world is primarily English-speaking. Encyclopedias are not here to force "correct" definitions on the reader. They are here to describe objects, concepts, usages, etc., as they really are. If a concept is only relevant to a North American audience, then that should surely be noted in the article. But we cannot sanitize Wikipedia of all regional differences. We cannot ignore that which is real, and we cannot invent that which is not. There are a whole slew of policies that have to be followed for an encyclopedia to work. Your own wiki for just beer, in which you may have different rules for inclusion might be a better place for what you're trying to do, if what you're trying to do is enforce definitions, not describe them. We here are a full-blown encyclopedia, however, with policies that need to be followed across the board. BTW, no, you didn't answer (or at least not satisfactorily), Beakerboy's question: "What style ("Trappist" is not a style, it's a label) is the beer in question?" └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)