Talk:Trappist beer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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
Start This article has been rated as Start-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.



Contents

[edit] Authentic Trappist beer

"...only seven breweries in the world may legally produce Trappist beers. All six of them are Belgian."

Are there six or seven breweries? /Claes

There is no discussion concerning LaTrappe. It is no Trappist beer.

I concur

I'm afraid it is... Why do you think it's not??

La Trappe uses the Trappist name, but not the logo, nor does it claim to be authentic. However, it produces a white beer, that claims to be "het enige Trappistenwitbier ter wereld" (The only Trappist-whitebeer in the world). This beer is quite new, certainly after the Bavaria takeover. So why would it claim to be a Trappist if it is not?

Why can't everyone who is not sure that La Trappe is not a Trappist beer just check the official Trappist site. Go to "Products", then select "Beer"... It clearly states the 6 official Trappist beers: Achel, Chimay, Orval, Rochefort, Westmalle and Westvleteren.

warpozio 11:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear all

The modifications I had made on wikipedia have been changed again, I regret it, because the article became wrong again, so I had to change it again, now it is more correct. I am the author of the first site on trappist beer collecting on the web, there is now another newer version of the site : http://www.trappistbeer.net The confusion between the fact that a beer can be called a trappist beer and the wear of the "authentic trappist product" logo is one of the most common mistake in the beer lovers world... The wear of the "authentic trappist product logo" is not a proof for a beer to be a real trappist beer. Only the judgement of 1962 (court of Gent, Belgium) is still available for determining what legally is a trappist beer. The "authentic trappist product" logo is given by a private association and has NO LEGAL VALUE. Here are more detailed analysis http://www.trappistbeer.net/divers/newsletter4.htm and http://www.trappistbeer.net/tilburg/trappist2_frame2_66en.htm : I won't discuss about this analysis much, read it first then you will understand what you did not.

SO : - checking the site of the international trappist association will not help you determining what is a trappist beer, but only what beers have the right to wear the "authentic trappist product" logo - stating that there is no discussion about La Trappe is a very short explanation for an encyclopedia : no arguments. it's wrong.

There are 7 trappist beers and 6 beers which have the right to wear the "authentic trappist product" (moreover, this may change in the near future...) posted by cyril59 on June 2005, 10th


Hi there,

I made some modifications in the article. I hope I have not truncated any ideas from the previous article but it seemed unclear to me. I still have a problem with something : how could La Trappe wear the authentic logo as it seems to have been created in 1998 only, where the selling of La Trappe to Bavaria occurred in 1997! To me, the International thing was created in reaction to this selling... but i'm not sure of that. Anyway, i hope i've made clear the distinction between trappist beer and authentic trappist product. Let's improve the article,

Julien Tuerlinckx 16:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi Julien La Trappe does exist for many many years, well before 1998... There is absolutely no link between the creation of the international trappist association and La Trappe products. Monks of Tilburg belong to the international trappist association

You should read my site first

Cyril59

Hi Cyril, I'm no hard worker. I read a bit of your site (which seems a nice one) but you don't cite your sources on the la trappe part... For example, you should remark that the Bierbrouwerij De Koningshoeven was created in 1997 and not 1999. 1999 seems to be the year the brewery withdraw the trappist logo from their beers. About 1998 : how could La Trappe wear the authentic logo as it seems to have been created in 1998 only the 'it' was obviously refering to the logo (maybe you should have read the article before writing this?).

About the Ghent tribunal part : I'm not sure this has to do with the La Trappe case. Historically, the judgement was given to avoid non-trappist abbeys to produce "trappist" beers (as it says on your site) but i'm not sure this judgement has legal meaning for products made in The Netherlands. Furthermore, it seems (but the source might not be reliable) that : Onze gemeenschap is lid van de Orde van de Trappisten en als zodanig heeft onze gemeenschap het recht om binnen de wetgeving van onze kloosterorde, en niet die van de Internationale Vereniging Trappist, al haar producten de naam van Trappist te geven. (in the third reference of the article) which roughly means that La Trappe monks can call their beer trappist under the legislation of their order and not under that of the International Trappist Association. Indeed, the word trappist must indicate that trappist monks (or people have received the autorisation from them) brew some beer. That was precisely the meaning of the Ghent judgement but the choice of La Trappe monks was not a consequence of that judgement as there's no reason a trappist monastery couldn't call beers they produce trappist. Anyway, i would be interested in you citing your sources about the link between the 1962 judgement and the la trappe beers, and also interested in knowing more about the juridical piece. If you wish to write some lines about this here...

Julien Tuerlinckx 13:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about all you say above

Julien

As far as I know the brewery in Tilburg was officially taken over in July 1998, I will change it on the website, as I indicated 1999, but it's not really important. The first steps of the cooperation started in 1997.

But I wonder why you try to lead a discussion on La Trappe, while the problem is that your additions and modifications on the article (about trappist beer, not La Trappe) are  : wrong and confusing. I'm not interested in discussing with you about international law and the judgment of Ghent and its links with La Trappe and all these kind of things, that will be rather long and complex and probably not interesting here : it's about an article of Wikipedia concerning Trappist Beer, that I find very confusing since you are modifying it in a wrong way.

By the way, whether your 'it' was refering to the La Trappe brand or to the logo, you must know that what you say is wrong, because your informations are wrong. It's then a normal conclusion that you cannot understand some things, when you have wrong informations. Moreover, you make connections between things which are not connected...that does not help you.

Funny the way you talk, as if you try to give me lessons...while you have written so many wrong and changing things here.

More than one time you 'corrected' right things to rewrite them wrong... Even if I do not have all the truth (who has ?) I think I had written a simple and satisfying complement of explanation based on your version of article, but you simply removed it and replaced again by wrong things...

So, as I told before, do what you want now. Just let the link to my site on the page and I will be satisfied. This is my last message in this discussion thread. I'm always opened to a direct contact by email. Adios

Cyril

[edit] opinion on the new article

I must also admit I find the new article very obscure, and imprecise almost nothing is said about trappist beer, but you speak of the ITA the previous one was more clear in my opinion I won't change the article anymore : always correcting you is tiring, you want the article to be yours while you do not know what you speak about.

Cyril59

[edit] Oi!

Can you stop having revert wars. First of all, if you edit from several anonymous IPs in this way you will be blocked. Now your source for saying that La Trappe is now going to be allowed to be called "Authentic Trappist Beer" again is apparently [1] - not immediately obvious from the references, and apparently a website you write, so hardly a good source. I have put a verification request out to some other people, but please do not revert again without an account. Justinc 20:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, I have had the La Trappe facts verified independently by an independent expert on Belgian Beer, so I shall clean up. See [2] Justinc 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Hep, just wanted to post a nice website about the history of trappists. Let's add some information from Short History of Trappist Monasteries and Their Beers this site onto this one cuz i find it very well documented. And when i say this, I am aware that this site says Cyril site is one of Two excellent websites covering Trappist beers are: Cyril Pagniez's www.trappistbeer.net); and Danny Van Tricht's www.trappistbier.be. Note that Danny has a Message Board, devoted to Trappist Beer.... By the way, it says Note that the La Trappe range of beers had the Authentic Trappist Product logo on the bottles, see below, removed in 1999, following the involvement of a large Dutch brewery called Bavaria in the brewery within the monastery. Pope John Paul II (Papa Giovanni Paulo II) (Karol Wojtyla) (1920-2005) was involved in the decision to stop Koningshoeven using the logo. Note, however, that the logo was reinstated, the monastery announced, in October, 2005. (I kinda like the the monastery announced by the way)... Cheers, Julien Tuerlinckx 12:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pffff....

I 'll be correcting the article as long as I see wrong things inside. With you, it'll be a neverending story, and I don't have much time for this The problem is that you should stop changing correct writings to replace them by your texts, without taking the time to verify that in the end you are wrong My source was quoted in my web page : it was an information given to me by the abbey of Tilburg, many months ago, and they simply asked not to reveal it before october 2005 7th (if I remember well) : the same day, the information and sources were released on the official site of the brewery, and on many famous beer forums, and also by the ITA itself. I found it rather funny that you have asked the question to "independent beer experts"...on a web forum : a bit naive. You wrote so many wrong and false things in that article, from the very beginning, that needed to be changed again and again... In fact, I should take the time to rewrite it completely, but I am so certain that you would change it again in the wrong way, that in the end I don't know what to do exactly...

[edit] Any authoritive sources?

I've been reading the article, history and talk page, trying to figure out what the issue here is. Seems that no one can agree what the legal situation is with regard to the Trappist name or the logo. Is the logo a legal trademark (and if so, where?) and is the word Trappist a trademark? Until this is verifiable, the article should not state either is true. The only thing that I see is pretty certain is that the use of the logo itself is legally protected (either by court order or possible trademark). La Trappe used the trappist name whilst not using the logo, so obviously the standing of each does differ. Riflemann 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1666

Following an anonymous and strange edit I would like to confirm that the Trappist order was founded in the 1660s and not two centuries later as the anonymous user sais, at least if you trusr the Trappist (few sources) and Cistercians articles. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...I've done a lot of research lately on the Trappists and their beers and everything (including the order's official page) states the 17th century. It sure was a strange edit though. Riflemann 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.666, the number of the beast......

The trappist order was founded December 8th 1892. The trappist order was not founded in the 1660's, it's just a community that decided to follow a stricter observance that was founded in the 1660's, at that time it was certainly not an Order, not even a Congregation...So, if you've done a lot of research, you failed to find the right information, or more probably you did not look at the right place.... But it is now very common to read wrong things here. (the "trappist" article on wikipedia should be deleted as it is wrong) And about the wear of the logo, things are perfectly clear for quite a while. The logo originates from the ITA, and only the ITA can decide who can wear it or not, following the defined rules. And for the trappist name for beer, justice and lawyers had to take decisions about it many years ago, in Belgium, as well as in the USA.

[edit] what about the beer?

All this discussion about the Trappist monks is good, but what about the beer? Could someone describe the beer perhaps? Is trappist one kind of beer or do they vary? Is anything known about the brewing methods? If someone who is not a monk made a Trappist-style beer, what would you call it? I think this article is missing a description of the actual subject. If I knew about Trappists, I'd add, but I don't hence the request.

I'm trying. I'm trying.1Z 12:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] errr

Is trappist one kind of beer or do they vary?  : trappist is not a style, so they vary (blond to black colors, bockbier, white beer...., top or low fermentation, hoppy or not, 4% to 12% alc/vol, they do vary.) . If someone who is not a monk made a Trappist-style beer, what would you call it? : well,.... trappist is not a style. . I think this article is missing a description of the actual subject.  : well if you read it carefully, the essential is said, because trappist beer is not a style of beer

[edit] Types of beer

The current section is a mass of confusing detail, POV, and over-generalisation. It pushes the POV that there are no Trappist styles, although Dubbel and Tripel arev recognised as styles by authorities like Tim Webb and Michael Jackson. I will re-write if references are not provided 1Z 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you cannot be serious

I quote : "Replace Tilburg with the name more familiar int eh English speaking world". This is ******. Replacing the name of Tilburg with La Trappe is such a mistake ! This is the abbey/brewery of Tilburg (Berkel Enschot), end of story. The word La Trappe is related to a commercial brand. The only "La Trappe" abbey that we know is located in France. I will remove these words as they are so wrong.

you ask for a citation for the fact that "trappist monks have labeled their beers with a very wide range of different appellations that have nothing in common". But, READ, it is indicated that all the necessary references (or pictures of the trappist labels) can be consulted on some of the websites quoted below.

Trappist in itself is not a style nor a type, it is such an evidence. You should learn and read more about beer, and/or trappist beer to understand that. Trappist is just an appelation; a kind of appellation of controled origin; nothing more. The old article (which was defining styles as single/dubbel/trippel/quadrupel) was the one which was over confusing. I don' see any other way to seriously classify trappist beers simply by following the different types of beers they belong to (ale, white, bock, pilsner....) and their content of alcohol (+ a description of their color, why not). The only true references that can be provided are the ones given by the trappist themselves, on the labels of their beers. Where will you classify orval, wvl blond, la trappe white just ot name a few in your dubbel/trippel classification ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.170.13 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 August 2007

It may be that the sources you mention have the necessary information to address the content that has been tagged as needing citation, but the fact tags need to be addressed per WP:V,WP:CITE and WP:RS – Dreadstar † 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to ignore that LA TRAPPE is a french abbey (or a commercial brand), the dutch abbey/brewery is the abbey of Tilburg and the sentence is referring to the place of production Do not remove the last sentence about the fact that trappist is not a style, because it is not, there are pilsner trappists, bockbier trappist, etc....trappist is simply not a style of beer. But in the end, you seem to be a good troll...and wikipedia a very poor medium of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.170.13 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 10 August 2007

The Dutch brewery markets itself as La Trappe: [3]. The French abbey is irrelevant to an article about beer. I am not claiming that Trappist is itself a styel, or that all Trappist beers are Dubbels or Tripel. However, D and T are regarded as styles by some notable authorities. If you want to maintain that Westmalle Tripel has "nothing in common" with Chimay Tripel please cite an appopriate authority. Beer labels will not do.
"I don' see any other way to seriously classify trappist beers simply by following the different types of beers they belong to (ale, white, bock, pilsner....) and their content of alcohol"
The original text made the point about relative strengths more clearly than your argumentativce version. Please understand that this is no an argunent for one side to "win", it is about writing a balance, clear and informative article. 1Z 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


  1. The point is : are you able to understand the difference between the place of production and the name of a product ? IF you can read , the sentence is about the beers produced at different PLACES (chimay, orval, westvleteren, achel, TILBURG). I wrote the sentence, so I can tell FOR SURE that it's not the name of the beer that is quoted in the sentence, will you at last understand it ? and will you at last change that name of La Trappe, which is a brand and not the name of the place ????
  2. You seem satisfied to have won the revert war on that point, I stopped because it is useless to try to "win" over people like you. You are wrong and that is what is important to know.
  3. Other point : If you had read a little bit about the french abbey of La Trappe, you should know that it is PERFECTLY relevant in that article : it is even quoted in the beginning of the article : can you read ?
  4. The original paragraph "types of beer" in a previous article was trying to define a kind of classification, admitting at the same time that this classification "is only followed loosely".....you can't classify trappist beers or trying to "type" them by making such approximations. Here I quote the old version : "Westmalle tripel is amber coloured, while Rochefort tripel is dark..." (read it again....omg ! btw does Rochefort Tripel exist ? just a question.) : and you call that "clear" ????? well....How dare you include those 2 beers in the same category ???? (drink them before, then tell me)
  5. Single is not a style nor a type, and quadrupel was used the first time by the brewery of Tilburg just to describe a beer even stronger than the tripel. The quadrupel made at Tilburg has simply nothing in common with the Rochefort 10 for example, they are completely different beers, their only common point is that they are both very strong.
  6. I think that if you had REALLY drank those beers, you would not say such things...
  7. Orval, Wvl blond, La Trappe bockbier, La Trappe witbier, petit orval.... all those trappist beers do not belong to any of these categories, they are not singel, dubbel,tripel nor quadrupel, they are... something else... What in common between orval and achel blond ? tell me your opinion...
  8. I see that your only last rescue is willing make me say things that I did not say and that's a pity: if you had really tasted Chimay White and Westmalle Tripel side by side, you wouldn't say such things.
  9. A few more questions : have you tried Westvleteren "Special" ? and how would you compare it with the beer Rochefort used to call "Spéciale" ?
  10. Another question, more simple : how do you think the Westvleteren Dubbel can compare to the westmalle dubbel ? I remind you, or more probably inform you that the Westvleteren dubbel could still be found at the abbey some years ago... a monk gave a bottle to me, and I have kept the crowncap (I also have labels of that beer, if you need "proofs")
  11. The (IMO) only serious way to classify trappist beers is to attach them to existing beer styles (bock, pilsner, ales... I wouldn't rely too much on dubbel and trippel, but, anyway...) and describe their content of alcohol and colour (and taste...of course)
  12. Maybe french have understood how to describe (wine) : name the origin (geographical or other), the color, the composition (type of grape), then describe the taste, and do not think too much about the "style" or "type". Beer drinkers still have to learn from wine on that point of view (and also to avoid the excesses and weaknesses seen in the wine world)
  13. Anyway, I think I am wasting my time here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.170.13 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 10 August 2007
<responses to points above>
1. The sentence may be about beer produced in different places, but it shouldn't be. Most people know these beers by their brand names, which may or may not be the same as the place of production.1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
2. have no idea what you are tryting to say. Theakston's is called Theakstons, not "Masham". Rogue is called Rogue, not Oregon. 1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
4. That is your personal opinion. The article shoud follow vrifiable and notable sources in accordance with the WP guidelines.1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
4.Here I quote the old version : "Westmalle tripel is amber coloured, while Rochefort tripel is dark..." (read it again....omg ! btw does Rochefort Tripel exist ? just a question.) : and you call that "clear" ????? well....How dare you include those 2 beers in the same category ???? (drink them before, then tell me)
4.Relative strength, as the original text stated
4.Single is not a style nor a type, and quadrupel was used the first time by the brewery of Tilburg just to describe a beer even stronger than the tripel.
4.Which makes perfect sense on the "realtive strength" theory.1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
4."The quadrupel made at Tilburg has simply nothing in common with the Rochefort 10 for example, they are completely different beers, their only common point is that they are both very strong."
4.Refernce? 1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Relative stregth. They are all the weakest in the range.1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Reference? 1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC
10. Reference? 1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Is your opinion notable? Since almost all Trappist beers are ales, that isn't very helpful. 1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter: The problems with the article have nothing to do with "balance, clear and informative", they have to do with accuracy and facts. Before Cyril corrected it, there was much nonsense here. And why, I wonder, is "a French abbey irrelevent to an article about beer?"

Have they started brewing?1Z 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, if foreign people have a misunderstanding about Trappist beer (for example, that a quadrupel is a Trappist beer style), why should that misunderstanding be written in an encyclopedia?

If you can find a reputable source to say it is a misunderstanding (and no others sources say differently, fine) Otherwise -- why should your personal opinions be written in an encyclopedia?1Z 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But, enough. Here is what you are looking for: "Bij de abdij- en trappistenbieren worden de verschillende types meestal onderscheiden door de _benamingen_ enkel, dubble en tripel. Deze termen betekenen telkens een hooger alcoholgehalte; de bieren worden dus telkens 'straffer'." ("In het Spoor van de Trappisten", by Geert van Lierde, et. al., page 25). For someone who claims to know so much about Belgian beers, I assume no translation is needed. Mikebe 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NB : page 23-24 in the french version of the book. But even there, he more or less admits that the categorization is very "flexible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.170.13 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 August 2007
The original text said that too. What is your problem? 1Z 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion vs policy

<copied/moved from above>

  • 4. That is your personal opinion. The article shoud follow vrifiable and notable sources in accordance with the WP guidelines.1Z 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This a point that you have religiously ignored since you started editing beer articles. You either state only your opinion or websites that violate WP guidelines. And now you accuse someone else of what you have been guilty of from the beginning and have never stopped doing? Mikebe 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "More on types of beer"

"It is in the human nature to try to classify things, but trying to define a typical range of trappist beers following their names generally leads to no serious classification."

Is not deserving of a place in an encyclopedia, and:

"Over the years, trappist monks have labeled their beers with a very wide range of different appellations that have nothing in common even though they can be orthographically identical."

Is straightforwardly bad English.

217.196.231.33 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)