Talk:Japanese beer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
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
B This article has been rated as B-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.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Start?

The article states that Japanese beer "had its start during the Edo Period". The Edo Period page defines it as 1603 to 1868. Can we be slightly more precise? This is three centuries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.76.94 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order by production volume

It only makes sense to order the breweries by production volume if you also state what the production volume is, otherwise it just looks like a random ordering to most readers. --DannyWilde 02:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The production volume changes from year to year, but as far as I know, the ranking of the top five has been relatively stable for the past several years. Unless someone decides to make a more comprehensive list, it is probably sufficient just to note 'in order by production volume' in the article. The American breweries article doesn't show the production volume either. --Dforest 03:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see why a list of external links needs to be ordered by production volume - I only put Asahi before Kirin originally because of alphabetical order. Anyway, as you say, unless the list gets very long it's not so important. --DannyWilde 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing to the Reinheitsgebot

Comparing Japanese beer regulations to the German Reinheitsgebot is relevant because it is a standard known worldwide, one of the oldest consumer protection laws still in use (although technically, it has been superceded by the Provisional German Beer Law), and particularly because Japan has a history of emulating German beer culture. --Dforest 03:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If there is a reason for comparing to the German system, then make that reason clear in the article itself. If the Japanese system emulates the German system, then it is a minor miracle that you would keep on and on removing the words "similar to" from the article. In this case, you left the sentence with a trailing comma. --DannyWilde 13:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Likewise, if there is a reason for comparing to the US and UK systems, that should be made clear in the article itself. Dforest 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Guys, even comparing Japanese h**se p** to German beer is offensive to me as a German. You don't know how Germans in Japan suffer. -- Mkill 03:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I used to have a friend called Erwin who seemed to like Japanese beer, he drank it by the crateful (that is a 20 bottle crate). He was from Bavaria, and apparently he was named after Erwin Rommel. The problem with the article is that the section on German beer has somehow got totally disconnected from the thread of the discussion. There is just a sudden jump from talking about Japanese beer, then there is a another sentence "this is totally different from German beer which is blah blah blah". Originally I wrote that the regulations were "similar to" German ones, which may be wrong, but if it's wrong, and Japanese beer regulations aren't similar, then I think it's obvious that the section should be deleted completely, since the German regulations are basically not relevant to a discussion of Japanese beer. If they are similar, then the article should say how and why they are so. --DannyWilde 03:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the right place to compare different beers anyway, just leaving it out is the best idea. This article should focus on listing beer brands, describing brewery techniques, and stating facts about the beer industry. On taste, we won't achieve NPOV anyway. - Concerning your friend Erwin: Well, of course Germans drink Japanese beer anyway, because German beer is impossible to pay for in Japan in larger quantities; who wants to pay 1000 yen for just one beer in Bernd's Bier Bar in Tokyo Roppongi? That doesn't mean people don't crave for German beer anyway. The second problem is that Japan tends to turn some gaijins into alcoholics. -- Mkill 12:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The issue is not comparing two different beers, but contrasting Japanese beer law with the original beer purity law, the Reinheitsgebot, which is still a strong tradition in Germany. There is no doubt that Japan considers Germany as a role model for its beer. Michael Jackson once said "The notion that all good beer comes from Germany is very strong in Japan." [1] Regarding Japanese beer regulations, in a sense they can be said to emulate the German system because both are based on purity of ingredients. However the Japanese system allows 33% of ingredients that are commonly considered adjuncts: rice, corn, sorghum, potato, starch, and sugar. Dforest 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you say that in the article then? I just can't believe it. You keep fouling the article up, and then trying to justify it on the talk page. If the German beer is relevant, the article itself should say why it's relevant. Instead, you keep on removing any attempt to say why it is relevant from the article, then writing all this on the talk page. Either put the reason why it's relevant in the article or leave the statement out. I've said this about four times now, and if you still are not going to take any notice, but just go on and on, then so be it. I will simply remove your words on and on in the same manner that you seem to prefer. --DannyWilde 07:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer purists

Regarding the statement (previously removed by User:DannyWilde) :

While reviled by purists, these drinks are said to look, smell and taste somewhat like beer, and according to some definitions, might be regarded as beer.

According to purist:

A purist is one who desires that a particular item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences.

According to beer:

The main ingredients of beer are water, malted barley, hops and yeast. Other ingredients, such as flavouring or sources of sugar, are called adjuncts and are commonly used; Common adjuncts are corn and rice.

By definition, happoshu contains less than 67% barley malt relative to adjuncts. The vast majority of happoshu sold today contains less than 25% malt (i.e. Asahi Honnama, Kirin Tanrei, Sapporo Nama-Shibori). Most "third beers" contain no malt, and use different ingredients entirely. Thus it is reasonable to state they are reviled by purists, who desire beer that remains "true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences". Dforest 11:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, you are incorrect. It is not "reasonable to state" any opinion in Wikipedia, especially on the basis of other Wikipedia pages. Other Wikipedia pages are not considered reliable sources. See WP:RS. If you want to make a POV statement like "reviled by purists" you need to make a clear, sourced statement of which purists say this. This is the Wikipedia policy. If you put the material in the article again, I'll remove it again, ad infinitum, until there is a source on the page itself. --DannyWilde 07:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)