Talk:Beer style: Difference between revisions

RfC: External links

The external links section of the article has been the subject of prolonged edit-warring and failure to reach consensus on what external links should be included in this section. One external site in particular (currently NOT in the article as of 11/26) has been advocated by several editors but strongly opposed by two, while another site (currently in the article as of 11/26) has raised questions about whether its presence represents a conflict of interest. Issue has been discussed at length multiple times in the past but no consensus has been reached. Recent edit-warring along with the absence of any new meaningful discussion has resulted in the article receiving a two-week full page protection. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what the point of this post is? You incorrectly state that there was no consensus, when in fact there was, and you talk about "edit warring" when just looking at the page history would show that this is the work of two trolls. So, again, what is your point? Mikebe (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did have the sense also that consensus on which links to include and which to exclude had more or less been reached. User:LouPepe and User:Sgt dizzle guy are, at best, fighting a battle they've already lost in discussion months ago. LouPepe seems to be a single-purpose account. I do think everyone involved in this could have been more WP:CIVIL. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Include BJCP I am new here and come in response to the RFC and see no sign of any real consensus in the discussion above. I have had a look at the BJCP site and although it is not perfect it is not, in my opinion, so bad that it should not be linked to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets rank the top 5 beer style websites for external links. I am willing to compromise and include more links, but the reasons why some editors on here insist on certain links smells like a conflict of interest. I know for a fact that killingvector and mikebe both know ron pattinson personally. They are agents of his and have an agreement and they will attempt to edit the beer project on wikipedia in order to link to ron's site, from which he receives advertising revenue. killingvector and mikebe have not passed the bjcp test and they remain bitter to this day. Some englishmen are angry that american brewers are on the bleeding edge of emerging styles. They wish to remain stodgy and plod along the rutted pale ale road they know so well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt dizzle guy (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here? For some reason Editor437, who has not posted here before, has deleted the section that I was referring to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The deleted comment has been restored. I don't have a clue whether the claims made by Sgt dizzle guy are valid or completely bogus. They should in any case be dealt with by responding to them, not by deleting them. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate the allegations that you make above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, he is one of the two trolls I mentioned above. Responding to him only encourages him to post more and to be more outrageous. Also, a clear consensus was reached in August and the fact that one bjcp supporter is now trying to reopen the vote has no merit or justification. Mikebe (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think a firm consensus has been reached regarding the BJCP guidelines. I have been involved in less-that-edit-wars conflicts about the inclusion of the BJCP style guidelines on more than one occasion. As far as I can tell, one or two editors vociferously oppose their inclusion, and they are a minority. Nevertheless, they have had their way. To some degree, they have convinced me that there are problems with the BJCP, but I have never been convinced that these guidelines misrepresent beer styles to any significant degree. Mostly, disputes about the BJCP have ended because certain editors are unrelenting in their opposition to the BJCP link and other editors simply give up because it's not worth their time.

I have been watching this debate transpire and remaining silent. The reason for silence is that I have found it fruitless to demand the inclusion of the BJCP in the past and did not see this debate turning out differently. (A quick look in the discussion archives will show that I have been involved in discussions regarding the BJCP on at least two other occasions.) I would deny that trolling is the cause of this edit-war. Though the present version has largely involved just two editors, it has occured in the past among several.

The editors that oppose the BJCP link seem to be to have a strong bias against sources of american origin or on the subject of homebrewing. Look around and you will see unqualified statements to the effect that books on homebrewing are necessarily inaccurate regarding the history of beer. They also seem to misunderstand the point of beer styles when they point out that in their own countries people don't ask "What style of beer is this?" but instead "Do you like this?" (That point is a false dichotomy, a red herring and a straw-man all in one.)

I for one feel that the BJCP is a good resource, and that it fairly represents what it is: a catalog of beer styles organized in part around sensible categories for beer competitions.

Nevertheless, there's no special reason that the BJCP needs to be included. It is certainly the best internet source regarding the relationship between brewing processes, ingredients and styles of beer, so maybe there is a reason to include it. There are less controversial sources out there, and the BJCP are the fifth link down in a google search on "beer style" or "beer styles", so anyone looking for information on beer styles on the internet is likely to find this anyway. Sometimes you get the impression from these debates that Wikipedia is the only place people look for information.

philosofool (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Google results

The questions remains: do we include the BJCP link? If one goes in google and types in 1. beer style, 2. beer styles, 3. "beer style", or 4. "beer styles", the BJCP index shows up always in the top 5. Here are the rankings for each keyword search:

1.Beer style: BJCP is #5

2.Beer styles: BJCP is #3

3."beer style": BJCP is #5

4."beer styles": BJCP is #5

What about the yahoo search results?

1.Beer style: BJCP is #2

2.Beer styles: BJCP is #4

3."beer style": BJCP is #5

4."beer styles": BJCP is #3

This is a link that shows up in the top 5 of all major keyword searches on google and yahoo. Therascal99 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What I would like to see happen is not only to come to some sort of resolution on the sites at the center of this controversy, but discuss other sites that might merit inclusion as well (e.g. CAMRA). Wikipedia standards indicate that the number of links should be limited, but in my opinion the readers of the article would benefit from having at least a couple more (aside from any of those currently present or under discussion).

It has proven extremely difficult to conduct a rational discussion so long as a couple of key participants are fanatically determined to exclude one particular site and to include one particular site, and any alleged consensus that has resulted from past discussions has been at best an uneasy truce. philosofool's summary of the history of this debate is pretty accurate in my judgment. It doesn't help that one of said participants routinely engages in wikilawyering, gaming the system, and borderline uncivil behavior that has annoyed others and effectively created a hostile atmosphere in which it difficult to conduct a rational discussion or to leave the participants with a sense that a consensus was fairly reached. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the past participants in the discussions have given up and left out of sheer frustration. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am for inclusion of more external links. If people agree to include ron pattinson's site, which he profits from via banner ads, that's fine. The people that claim that BJCP is not accurate do so because they have not passed the test. I think ron pattinson's site is hard to navigate and i question the financial relationship he has with certain bar owners. He has previously attempted to use wikipedia to advertise his book. His blog has decayed into a rough draft for his book. I will bow out of this debate, and you won't hear from me anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt dizzle guy (talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I find it quite interesting (and notable) that this discussion is mostly divided by lines of nationality -- the Americans see nothing wrong with using the bjcp and the non-Americans do. But, I'll come back to this later. I find it also quite odd that people refer to "alleged" and "failure to reach" consensus as if this is something that someone has made up! In fact, as is perfectly obvious to anyone willing to look higher up on this page, the consensus was declared by ClockworkSoul who is: 1. American, 2. a supporter of the bjcp and 3. an administrator of Wikipedia. How is his decision "alleged" or a "failure"?

Secondly, Philosofool complains about bias against American sources and home-brewing sources. Speaking for myself, I am not against either American sources or home-brewing sources, when they are used in a logical and appropriate way. But, why, for example, use the famous American beer writer Jeannie Bastian when there are non-American sources (in English) written by people who know even more about the subject? This all gives me the impression that American sources are preferred over foreign ones, even in English. And, in several instances, those American sources also happened to have key facts wrong.

I have never understood why there is a home-brewing/brewing article or portal here, yet so much brewing information is put in non-brewing beer articles. For example, this: "One belief of the use of rice or corn as adjuncts seems to stem from the high protein content of American six-row barley, which can be more difficult to clarify than European two-row, the standard for most European beer styles; the use of the adjunct therefore dilutes the protein haze from the six-row barley as well as lightens the body of the beer."

It seems logical that many of the people who come here to read about beer are not home-brewers and find the articles much too technical to understand. I, for one, have no idea what diacetyl tastes like or where it comes from. And nor do I want to know. Why can't descriptions be read by anyone? Why not use common fruit or vegetables instead of using the names of chemicals that don't mean anything to most people?

Philosofool also wrote: "To some degree, they have convinced me that there are problems with the BJCP, but I have never been convinced that these guidelines misrepresent beer styles to any significant degree." Let me recommend you take a look at Silktork's comments (from 24 Sept.) further up this page.

But, I think there is another point that Silktork also brings up and that I have myself read from a bjcp official: the bjcp style guides are designed specifically for the brewing competitions - they are not designed to be used in other contexts. If anyone wants to then say: well, then why do they publish them on their site, I would respond - that's a damn good question!!!

Let's let the bjcp speak for itself, shall we? Here is a direct quote from a bjcp official involved with their style guide: "The BJCP is not in the market of getting into battles with people or organizations. The guidelines are for our own purposes and not meant to be the end all of anything or for any other purpose than our own. There are a lot of people out there that are abusing the guidelines in that they try to use them to tell people what 'styles' are supposed to be like/ have been like.

They try to use them as an arguing point. Some of the styles in the BJCP are a combination of a few different styles. Our nomenclature is not meant to be used to tell other people or other countries of what their beers are supposed to be like."

I'd rather not post his name here, but this was written publically on the web and I will be happy to provide a link if anyone has questions.

So, in summation: yes, there remain many faults in the bjcp style guide to non-American beers, but, when the organisation itself says it would rather they not be used outside of their organisation's activities, why can't we at least follow their wishes? Mikebe (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through the talk page and cannot see any sign of a consensus being reached.

Any national organisation is unlikely to present a worlwide view on a subject, but surely people know that. In my view it would be best to include a link to the BJCP but balance it with a links to other (no more global) organisations such as CAMRA. What is the objection to this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One objection comes from the bjcp itself: they don't want you to. I thought I had already made that clear. Mikebe (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here we're really getting into the crux of it. It's not that the BJCP provides a specifically American view of beer styles, as far as I can tell; rather, it provides an inaccurate view of beer styles, by any measure. And really, I don't trust CAMRA's beer style guide either; CAMRA's style categories are loosely defined and often in contradiction with history, and shift from year to year -- and I say this as a member involved with applying those style categories for awards.

Now, how do I know this? Among other things, the sites that User:Patto1ro run are drawn straight from primary source material; Patto1ro is actually going into brewing logs and brewery guides from as far back as the 18th century, and putting the raw material on his websites. But we seem to be in the following position: when Patto1ro was contributing, he'd include information from this original source material, which was then often quickly taken down by a gaggle of editors citing the BJCP's style guides; and since they are private websites, there are valid objections to be discussed -- and overcome, in my opinion -- to including links to his pages under WP:EL.

As for whether Patto1ro makes money off banner ads on his sites, I don't know and I don't care. As for the accusations that Sgt dizzle guy and formerly Editor347 are making against me (and I do strongly suspect that those users constitute a case of sockpuppetry), those are completely untrue. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with Pattinson's site is that it's self-published. Wikipedia does not encourage the use of self-published sources. But I think the Pattison's site is really a distraction in the present debate. philosofool (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's new to me. Can you point to where they say that? Thanks. Mikebe (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SPS is the section on self-published sources. (For some reason that link keeps taking me to the bottom of the relevant page, but if you scroll up you'll see the section on self-published sources, which explicitly mentions websites.) It's quite clear on the point that self-published work best avoided. But, to repeat, the present discussion is not about Pattinson. philosofool (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood that. This refers not to the method of publication, but the content. Ron's content is footnoted usually with published books, periodicals or with weblinks. This, however, could be used against the bjcp since they also create the content but give no footnotes or explanation where the material comes from.Mikebe (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes in no way make Pattinson's work published by a third party. The BJCP is not a personal website, and so doesn't fall under the policy. Several of the authors of the BJCP guidelines are published on the topic of beer styles. The BJCP is no more "self-publishing" than CAMRA is. But as I have said before, this discussion is not about Pattinson's website. philosofool (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if this discussion isn't about Pattinson, why did you bring it up? Secondly, there is nothing in the policy that restricts it to personal sites, so your comment is invalid. And finally, the issue is not "published by" the issue is content... which we have been over ad nauseum. Mikebe (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the central question here is whether to include the BJCP. There has been some discussion about whether to include CAMRA and other sources, but I don't really see any major controversy over whether to include those. The external links section should not become cluttered, but 5-8 external links is perfectly accepatble. Moreover, since there is genuine dispute (here and in the beer loving community in general) about beer styles, one of the best ways to handle that constroversy is by representing a diversity of sources and opinions in the external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosofool (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet understood the case for not including BJCP. I am not sure that it is actually possible to attach any meaning to the word 'accurate' in this context. Remember, first came the beer, then came the beer styles. People like to categorise things but ther may be more than one way to do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The case for not including the bjcp is quite simple. This is an encyclopedia. Do we include accurate information or non-accurate? Mikebe (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The BJCP's descriptions of beer styles don't reflect the styles of beer they purport to describe. For example, the BJCP describes India pale ale thusly:

The term “IPA” is loosely applied in commercial English beers today, and has been (incorrectly) used in beers below 4% ABV....Vital Statistics: OG: 1.050 – 1.075 IBUs: 40 – 60 FG: 1.010 – 1.018 SRM: 8 – 14 ABV: 5 – 7.5%

(The "not under 4%" statement is also adopted by CAMRA in its unofficial definition of an IPA included in Good Beer Guides; in practice they lump IPAs in with bitters.) Patto1ro, meanwhile, finds a much broader range with much weaker examples for OGs and much lower FGs in IPA over large periods of the history of the style. With this data in hand, it's easy to see that the BJCP & CAMRA statements about a typical IPA are, at best, unjustly narrow, and in some interpretations outright misrepresent the style.

I'll say right at the outset: I originally was a BJCP supporter, though never a member, and argued for the inclusion of their style guides in articles. But the fact is, when what they publish doesn't jibe with historical data and rejects comparison with the current production, I just can't consider their style guides reliable sources. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually do maintain a problem with Pattinson's view on this stuff. On his view, it's almost impossible to mislabel a beer if you're the brewer, as though false advertising were somehow impossible. While the boundary between pale ale and india pale ale is not a sharp one, neither is the boundary between red and yellow. Nevertheless, somethings are clearly yellow and somethings are clearly red. Pattison's view of IPA basically makes many IPAs indiscernible from pale ales. But that point is neither here nor there, since this isn't really about whether to include Pattison's work, which I think should be judged on a case by case basis. philosofool (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

All these things are to a great degree matters of opinion and depend on whether you are considering the historical context or modern commercial reality, there is no 'right' answer. If the only problems with the BJCP web site are things like disagreements over the OG of IPA then that really is not a good reason not include a link to it. Purely as a matter of interest, I was always told that IPA was stronger than PA because it had to survive the journey to India, but this may be just beer folklore Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As was mentioned before, one of the objectives is to get a few more sites included in the external links besides the two currently listed (Pattinson's and Michael Jackson's). If there are no other sites that can stand up to the kind of scrutiny being put forth as reasons to exclude BJCP and CAMRA sites then that says to me we're being too exacting in our standards, not to mention that there have been some reasonable objections raised to Pattinson's site. That's not to say Pattinson's site should be excluded if it has good information, but then, I don't think the others should either. Any site is going to have it's pros and cons. There are enough reasonably good sites out there about beer styles that if you can't find at least 4 or 5 of them that are good enough to merit inclusion in this article, you may be setting your standards too high. (And feel free to bring up any other sites not yet mentioned that may be worth discussing. For instance, are there any German beer/brewing organizations that have a website with style guidelines on it?) --Mwalimu59 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, several people have pointed to problems with the bjcp style guides, yet none of the supporters have countered these problems. Philosofool himself claims it's "97% accurate", I assume he means on one style. Nevertheless, the bjcp itself has said their style guide is not meant to be used for purposes other than home-brew competitions.

As anyone who has looked at the forums on beeradvocate or ratebeer knows, beer styles are a subject of great debate. Is it a porter or a stout? Is it a quadruple or quintupel? Perhaps this is entertaining to the children who seem to predominate on those sites, but this ain't beeradvocate. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where people can come and get accurate and verifiable information -- all the time, not 97 or 80 percent of the time.

Personally, I think it would be good to add something to the article saying that beer styles are not static, but can change over time. If no one else does, I'll do it. I think we can all agree that is true. However, to give readers links to yet more style guides simply tells readers: there is no such thing as a style, there are as many different views as there are guides.

I see no reason to change the status quo and it seems to me that nothing anyone has written justifies that. Mikebe (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, especially about beer styles not being static, but I see this as a reason to link to more sites rather than fewer. There is no 100% correct, things change as you have said. There really is no reason not to include more links, including one to BJCP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So do we have consensus, then, to include Patto1ro's sites at least? --Killing Vector (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a consensus is needed since it seems to meet all WP requirements. Furthermore, it is more authoritative then any other style guide I've seen because of references to the original source material.

If that is an implied exclusion of BJCP then no. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an implied exclusion. They're two separate questions which have gotten conflated. If there is consensus on europeanbeerguide and barclayperkins (and I'd like it said explicitly so we can point to it the next time this comes up), then we can call that question answered and just talk about the BJCP from now on. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, the reason to exclude bjcp is a discussion that has been held here many times in the past, including on this very page. We are required by WP policy to include ONLY reliable sources wp:rs. The bjcp does not list its sources, the bjcp style information (for European beers) is frequently incorrect and finally, the bjcp makes up styles. However, as I have repeatedly said in its defense, they have specifically said that their style guide is only for competition, and is not meant to reflect the real world. With a statement like that, I don't know how anyone wishing to abide by WP rules could possibly think of including them. Mikebe (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS applies to the actual content of an article. There is no requirement to check all linked sites for accuracy; they are external sites, providing an external point of view, for further information and reference. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Try wp:elno. Look at #2 on the list. BTW, may I ask why you have this strong desire to see bjcp used, yet you don't seem to be involved at any level in the beer project? Mikebe (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I came here in response to the RFC and have no particular reason to want BJCP to be used, indeed I was not previously even aware of its existence. However, I see no reason not to use it. There is no such thing as 100% correct for beer styles and your complaints about what you describe as factual errors on that site are extremely minor. If you apply WP:ELNO to the degree that you propose, pretty well all external links would be banned; I believe that others have already made this point. BJCP is just another beer style site to me and I can find absolutely no reason to single it out for exclusion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"your complaints about what you describe as factual errors on that site are extremely minor." If they spelled Tripel as Tirpel, I would agree that is "extremely minor." However, when they, for example, describe tripel as "Deep yellow to deep gold in color", then it is a factual error that is not at all minor. There are more examples of errors like this, some of which have already been written on this page. As for wp:elno, I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly. Mikebe (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to disagree and wait to see what others say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So we have one quote by one BJCP official interpreted by one participant here that allegedly the BJCP doesn't want their style guidelines publicized here. Should that be enough to go on to exclude them? I don't think so, especially when the one doing the interpreting has historically been one of the most outspoken opponents of BJCP throughout the present and past discussions. The quote doesn't look that clear to me, and for all I know it's quite possible they've made other statements that are more favorable to receiving some publicity. Having said that, it may merit further investigation whether BJCP wouldn't want their guidelines referenced in this article, and if a more independent, unbiased investigation bears out that that is their position, I'd concur with their wishes.

The quote (and other sources) also make the point that the BJCP guidelines were written for the purpose of judging homebrew competitions, and any evaluation of their accuracy should be taken in that light. As such it would make sense if their style definitions were narrower than what you would get from a source that's more oriented toward beer consumers, such as Michael Jackson's work. The question has been raised about how narrow or broad a style definition should be if you have a situation where a lot of brewers produce what they will label as a particular style, such as India Pale Ale. Over time you end up with most of these beers falling within certain style characteristics but may still have a relatively small minority that fall outside the de facto standard that the others. Should the style guidelines be broadened to encompass those others, or does there come a point where you have to say some brewers produce what they call an India Pale Ale but it's really a different style from what is more commonly regarded as an India Pale Ale? It's a chicken or egg problem. A group like BJCP would, for their purposes, try to minimize overlap of style definitions, where a more consumer-oriented resource would be more tolerant of instances of style deviations.

Because Wikipedia articles should strive to be as accurate as possible, <sarcasm on>all sources must be 100% accurate and any source that isn't totally perfect is unworthy to be used as a reference or listed as a resource.<sarcasm off> Seriously, any source, if subjected to enough scrutiny, can be found to have flaws and inaccuracies, or at the very least a degree of the author's biases. I would suggest that anyone who can't name more than one or two sites that are good enough to be worthy of inclusion has probably set the bar too high and needs to relax their standards a little. In my opinion, one reasonable criteria for whether we have enough external links is that virtually every beer style in the world that is fairly non-trivial in terms of number of brewers or popularity should be covered by at least one or two of them. CAMRA is pretty much limited to British beer styles, though it may be a pretty good resource on those. Pattinson's site may do a good job of covering European beer styles from a historical perspective, but how comprehensive is it at including styles developed in America or elsewhere in the world, or which are relatively recent developments? If it doesn't address some of those areas, we should probably include one or more other sites that do. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

BJCP & CAMRA not comparable

One thing which I think needs clear pointing out in this discussion is that the BJCP is in no real way an American analogue of CAMRA. CAMRA is a consumer advocacy group for British beer styles that happens to run competitions evaluating professionally-made beer as a means of promoting drinkers' choice. The BJCP is a society that seeks to provide a standard for the way beer is judged at homebrewing competitions and that certifies judges and sanctions competitions to that end. CAMRA does offer tasting training and certifications, and it does publish homebrewing books, but neither of those have any official standing for anything CAMRA does; as far as I know there isn't a homebrewing action group, and judges for competitions are usually drawn from a mix of the industry and whatever celebrities we can get.

The reason I bring this is up is that it's important to remember what all these organizations are and are not. Mikebe's made the point several times that the BJCP itself says its style guides aren't to be used for anything other than beer judging competitions. They're not a center for beer scholarship, they're not a beer preservation society. They're a private organization who, from some undisclosed places, came up with a list of beer styles.

That is not the stated purpose of the BJCP. The first sentence on the BJCP page reads: "The purpose of the Beer Judge Certification Program is to promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills."

The BJCP does not disavow expertise on the subject of beer styles. They write "The styles included in the guidelines are not meant to describe every beer style made in the world (at least not yet). They are meant to cover the most common ones entered in homebrew competitions. The style descriptions are based on currently acknowledged world class examples, historical references to styles no longer brewed, and writings of noted beer researchers and journalists." (emphasis mine.) So, the BJCP takes itself to be referring to authoritative sources in the compilation of their guide. They further write "We have spent considerable time researching world class beer examples, visiting renowned breweries, talking with noted authors, and searching key reference materials for information on beer styles. We have collected this information into our guidelines as a way to reduce the amount of time, effort and variability in learning this knowledge." Mikebe has basically taken several statements from the BJCP out of context (I believe from the part where they are asserting their copyright...) to support his claim. The FAQ at the BJCP website is a good place to get clear about what the BJCP intends to do, their FAQ. Also, besides organizing competition, the BJCP actively promotes beer education, somewhat like CAMRA. You are right that their focus is somewhat narrower than CAMRA; the BJCP is not involved in consumer advocacy. However, comparisions with CAMRA are most beside the point here. philosofool (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then show me those sources. Show me a bibliography, show me research, show me publications...and with those in hand we can circumvent the whole discussion by citing the primary sources. Or, if those sources aren't apparent, then we should treat it as we treat any other website.

I don't think the burden of proof is on me to show that they are correct in their assertion that they are scholarly. Rather it is on you to show that they are not. As one example, Stan Heironymous, author of a well cited, well-researched book on Trappist/Abbey styled beers, is one of the individuals that contributed to the book. Nothing you've said impunes the credibility of what they actually write, you're just making unsubstantiated claims about their merit while not even bothering to show that their results are flawed. philosofool (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not on you specifically to show that. But from WP:ELNO: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". At least one case of factual inaccuracy is shown above, with the IPA example; I'm prepared to discuss another, with regard to porter. The BJCP's description of their methodology below, meanwhile, shows it to be informal and unobjective, and therefore unverifiable; get a different set of evaluators and you'd get different results. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No extensive publication is 100% accurate in everything that it says. The BJCP's methodology does nothing to impunge the verifiability of the work; their work can be and is independently corroborated. The IPA example above is hardly convincing. Their claim says "around the early 20th century"; the contrary history says "at least one author by 1880" which would be only 20 years before the early twentieth century. These difference are hardly enough to show that the BJCP is substantially misleading. philosofool (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here, from the presentation on their revised (2004) style guidelines:

WHAT! This is a presentation about how they decided what needed to be revised for the guidelines, not a presentation about how they generated the guidelines themselves!!! This is at best of marginal relevance. What they basically say is "we criticized every single one." philosofool (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I ask again and again -- show me sources. Mikebe and I have both provided evidence of inaccuracy, which you concede even though you characterize it as thin. Where is the evidence for accuracy, or authoritativeness, other than the passages that have been cited in this discussion -- passages universally in the form of vague references, "we consulted some people" or "we had a discussion with this person"? --Killing Vector (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's an example of perfectly accurate from the BJCP, on the aroma of Marzen/Ocktoberfest:

Rich German malt aroma (of Vienna and/or Munich malt). A light to moderate toasted malt aroma is often present. Clean lager aroma with no fruity esters or diacetyl. No hop aroma. Caramel aroma is inappropriate.

philosofool (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you continuing? I have quoted below a bjcp official, speaking for the bjcp, saying: "There are a lot of people out there that are abusing the guidelines in that they try to use them to tell people what 'styles' are supposed to be like/ have been like." Their's is not a universal "style guide", but a collection of home-brewing exercises.

You have not correctly undestood this person, who clearly means to say that this style guide is not a set of rules on how to brew beer. A brewer can brew any way he likes. Beer styles are not unconditional rules like "Don't murder." The are descriptive, not proscriptive. philosofool (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here understands perfectly well what the statement means. We don't need an "interpretation" of it. You have, almost from the beginning, promoted your POV here with a lack of good faith shown to the other people in the discussion. When, for example, I gave you two examples of beers that proved the bjcp definition of tripel was incorrect, you ignored the two beers I named and instead listed examples (mostly American, coincidentally) that are closer to the bjcp definition.

I only used examples from the Tripel article, and all the examples from the Tripel article. It was the article that you referred me to. philosofool (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When I gave you an example of a Märzen beer that also shows the bjcp guide to be wrong, you said it was another kind of beer, although "Märzen" is printed in big letters on the beer's label. I've had quite enough of this and will not continue this discussion until or unless you demonstrate that you can act in good faith. Mikebe (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is another kind of beer. It is a smoked beer. If I make a beer with smoked malt and call it tripel, that does not make it tripel. "Marzen" in german can refer to any beer made in springtime. However, in English is means specifically the Oktoberfest style of beer, as I have already pointed out. philosofool (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Says who, exactly? CAMRA is silent on Märzen beers, and using the BJCP definition to argue a BJCP definition would be circular...while I usually don't agree with Mikebe's argument about a country's output properly defining a style of beer associated with it, surely between the hugely diverse American variations on Märzen and the broad availability of German Märzen in the US and UK our definition in English should be descriptive? Furthermore even cursory examination of the problem makes it clear that if a beer is, say, smoked, that doesn't exclude it from being in another style -- something does not stop being a Märzen if a quantum of smoked malt is added to the grist. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But, I'll accept your challenge, just for fun. I'm not sure what "fruity esters" are, but here's a Märzen with fruity aromas:

http://www.bier1.de/M%FCnster%20M%E4rzen.htm

And here's one with caramel: http://www.biertest-online.de/cgi-bin/show/ebs.pl?Data=meierei_spezial_maerzen

And from the bjcp style guide: "Appearance: Dark gold to deep orange-red color. Bright clarity, with solid, off-white, foam stand." So, I guess then that the German brewer's association is wrong when they wrote: "Helles oder dunkles Märzenbier wurde – wie der Name schon sagt – ursprünglich in Bayern im Monat März..." Or the German brewery that makes an almost black Märzen is also wrong: http://www.schlenkerla.de/rauchbier/sorten/sorten.html

That's a smoke beer. Your problem is that you do not know that in English, "Marzen" and "Oktoberfest" are synonyms. This fact will be confirmed for you if you look at the german wikipedia on Marzen bier. The practice of labeling beer "marzen" in Germany will not necessary track the use of this word in English. philosofool (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that is enough now and we can get back to improving the other articles. Mikebe (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I may do what ever I like and you may do what you like. What we shall do is half my decsion. philosofool (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As for sources, Ray Daniels Designing Great Beers and Michael Jackson's works both corroborate the BJCPs style descriptions. Terry Foster's Pale Ale (the author is British, in case there is some worry about national origin of the author) corroborates the BJCP regarding "pale ales." Of course, the agreement is not 100% (for example, Foster distinguishes dispensing method as stylistically important to british beer.) Nevertheless, their descriptions of flavors, history and brewing techiniques accords well with the BJCP's discussions, and it would be silly to suggest that the BJCP accord perfectly with all other sources, since other sources accord with one another as well as the accord with the BJCP. philosofool (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of Jackson to hand but as far as Daniels goes: I own a copy, I've homebrewed to it, the historical parts of the chapters are OK...but his quantitative and qualitative presentation of beer styles as they're currently brewed are derived from analyses of winning recipes from BJCP-certified homebrewing competitions. So of course they're going to accord well with the BJCP's style guides. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniels research, besides home brewed beer, includes historical records and commercial examples. The commercial examples and historical records are quite similar to what you find in the national competition winners, and this is just what you'd expect given the accuracy of the BJCP style guides. philosofool (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The BJCP style guidelines serve as an objective set of descriptions for brewers and judges of the styles most likely to be entered in homebrewed beer competitions

Now, "objective" is quite a tall order. So what's their methodology?

• Proceeded style by style with extensive discussion and field research ;-)

• Involved the aid of key individuals outside the committee to provide input, review and comment – this was not the work of the committee alone

• Used input gathered over the past 4+ years from judges and brewers

I'll grant that this is a presentation, and so apt to be nonspecific, but look at what's missing: there's no reference to historical information. They're taking an uncontrolled sample of, say, the stouts out there now, saying "these are all stouts, ergo a stout must be..." and putting out some quantitative and qualitative summary. Now, if a style exists de novo, and their sampling is exhaustive, then I might be willing to call that "objective". But a) they're going to have sample bias out the wazoo -- through no fault of their own, I don't expect them to drink beer they can't obtain, but there's going to be all kinds of selection error from availability -- b) "extensive discussion" would never be called "objective" in the social sciences and it shouldn't be called that here; and c) the styles, with the exception of a handful of examples (mostly native to the US), don't exist in a vacuum. Just from there I think it's clear that any historical comment the BJCP makes with regard to beer style should be rejected out of hand; but what's more, there's absolutely no distinction being made between the traditional style and a brewer deliberately playing against type (e.g. the cascade hops in some Old Rasputin Imperial Stout. While naively that looks like being descriptive instead of prescriptive, it means that in styles where there's a lot of contemporary experimentation going on the BJCP will always get a description out of kilter with the mainstream. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this even disqualifies them as a secondary source, but this discussion continues. --Killing Vector (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were right about what the BJCP is, you might be correct. But you are mistaken about the organization.philosofool (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedely support the inclusion of the BJCP Style Guidelines in this article. Ever hear of the saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? If it were decided that only perfect references were to be included, Wikipedia would be empty. The BJCP style guideline represent one methodical way of classifying beers. They are not the only way to do so. "Encyclopaedic" implies more than one point of view is represented, so the BJCP style guidelines, being a well thought out and methodical system, are entirely appropriate for inclusion. Omiting them makes the article weaker. Lovibond (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

bjcp supporters and integrity

This section constitutes a personal attack on the several editors who support the BJCP and assumes bad faith on their part. I kindly request that we cease all discussion of whether this discussion is proceeding in bad faith, assume good faither, and focus on the issue at hand, which is whether the BJCP is a source with sufficient authority to be included in the external links section of the article. If people insist on further insulting my integrity, I will simply refer those users to wikipedia administration. Additionally, if I have offended other editors by explicitly or implicitly questioning their integrity, I appologize and promise to be more careful in the future. philosofool (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. These are facts. And it is bizarre of you to suggest I need to assume good faith after you have already assumed the opposite about me repeatedly. Mikebe (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A big problem in this discussion is not specific points, but how they are presented by bjcp supporters. For example, this entire thread was started by Mwalimu59 several days after I tried cleaning up the bjcp article (for example, a fact tag that had been ignored since February 2007 and statements about bjcp that were unsupported by the sources cited). His reason for starting the thread was "failure to reach consensus" (also the "edit warring" that he conveniently neglected to mention was initiated by bjcp supporters). As I later pointed out there was NO "failure to reach consensus". Neither he nor Philosofool have ever denied this. There was a consensus and nothing has changed to overturn it.

Let's look now at Philosofool. He writes: "Part of the problem with Pattinson's site is that it's self-published. Wikipedia does not encourage the use of self-published sources. But I think the Pattison's site is really a distraction in the present debate." So, his idea of discussion is: I can criticise, but you can't defend ("But as I have said before, this discussion is not about Pattinson's website.")

Then, Philosofool claims: "Mikebe has basically taken several statements from the BJCP out of context (I believe from the part where they are asserting their copyright...) to support his claim." What I actually wrote was: "Here is a direct quote from a bjcp official involved with their style guide." Not quite the same thing.

On bjcp accuracy, I wrote: "The tripels made by several other trappists (Westvleteren and Rochefort, for example) do not fit this description at all." And how does Philosofool respond? He doesn't look at either one of the example I gave, but instead looks primarily at American "tripels." So, authentic trappist tripels don't fit the style guide, but since American versions do, somehow that makes the style guide correct?

There are yet more examples of misrepresentation and twisted presentation, but let's move on to the final act in this melodrama.

Although he doesn't name me specifically, Mwalimu59 wrote: "the one doing the interpreting has historically been one of the most outspoken opponents of BJCP throughout the present and past discussions." (He assumed that the quotes I had given from the bjcp official were an "interpretation".) Well, he does actually have a point. I have seen so many errors in the bjcp style guide that I assumed their research was weak to non-existent. However, after reading the post by the bjcp official, I understood better the goal of the style guide. Think of it not as a piano concerto, but as the scale or exercise the pianist plays before playing the concert. The reason that the tripel description is wrong is that it is meant only as a exercise. However, even considering this, I don't think it is a good idea for the bjcp to post it openly on the Internet or to list American beers as examples of obscure European beers.

But now, without further ado, here is the bjcp post in full (I have bold-faced the part which he wrote about his role in the bjcp):

---

Anonymous

The BJCP is not in the market of getting into battles with people or organizations. The guidelines are for our own purposes and not meant to be the end all of anything or for any other purpose than our own. There are a lot of people out there that are abusing the guidelines in that they try to use them to tell people what 'styles' are supposed to be like/ have been like.

They try to use them as an arguing point. Some of the styles in the BJCP are a combination of a few different styles. Our nomenclature is not meant to be used to tell other people or other countries of what their beers are supposed to be like.

It is true that styles are only a snap shot in time for any given 'beer'. HOwever, I can tell you for sure that the BJCP IS in the business of being as correct as they possibly can when it comes to historical styles. Historical styles are based off writings about these beers from their OWN time. Not from the writings of people today. People very much miss this fact. You can't claim a historical style and disregard how the style was actually brewed at the acme of ts production. Its a shame most people have never read original literature and use books, resources, etc that are frankly incorrect at best even if they are well written.

Finally the BJCP is very appreciative of any person that wants to help and actual research styles, beers, etc. That being said there are a massive amount of people trying to stand on principle and try and speak 'for' the BJCP. Simply, any information that has strong roots, great citations, is good information not matter how much it goes against what the common person thinks. Its hard to argue with one original source. Its nearly impossible to argue with numerous original sources all claiming the same thing. To get a group of individuals together to disparage and denigrate someones work derived from an original source is not just petty, its asinine. The status quo is not always right.

The are not infallible and are doing our best, everyday, to get better. This is the reason why I use my full name and title so people can see we are making an effort and that you can contact me directly.

Just so I'm not being misunderstood, I had a massive roll in the last update of the guidelines, I am the BJCP continuing education director and do speak directly for the thoughts and opinions of the BJCP.

If any of you think I'm trying to stick up for Ron you are very much misunderstood. Go back through our arguments. You can see that I challenge him when I think he's gone to far, has overstepped his bounds or is frankly wrong. That being said, Ron has made some great additions to my own knowledge of beer and continues, despite constant criticism, to try and educate people. I have the utmost respect for him...even if he is a 'T' sometimes. :)

Kristen England, Ph.D.
BJCP Continuing Education Director
education_director@bjcp.org

---

You can read the original yourself here: http://shrinkify.com/gi7

Curtain down. Mikebe (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in support of linking to more style sites. I think 4-6 links would be appropriate and the BJCP should be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouPepe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) [Moved from top of page by Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)]

As the edit war seems to be continuing, I would point out that there would now appear to be a clear majority in favour of including a link to BJCP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is to retain the BJCP link, if Ron's minions mikebe or vector disagree - too bad!!! Sgt dizzle guy (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd) - this includes Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe, so apparently the "majority" includes one person posing as at least 2 people. Plus, majority does not equal consensus. At any rate, it is clear that Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe are not working in good faith, so they should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.16.209 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So 24.8.16.209, why is it that you are so keen to remove the BJCP link? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- It is a false "consensus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.16.209 (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered what your reasons were for wanting the site removed. You have not edited this article before. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How odd, Martin. I have long wondered exactly the same about you. Mikebe (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite the same thing, firstly I write my own replies, and secondly I have participated in discussion about BJCP on this page, quite clearly giving my reasons for wanting the BJCP link to be retained. 24.8.16.209 has never posted here until very recently and has given no reason for not wanting the BJCP link. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply from 24.8.16.209. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami. It is precisely the same thing (other than the fact that you post with your user name and he/she does not). You mysteriously arrived here never before having written about beer or engaging in a discussion here, then passionately push for inclusion of the bjcp despite the letter from the bjcp official explaining that their style guide is not meant for public use and despite the innummerable differences cited between what is in the bjcp style guide and what exists in the real world. You have never given any reason for including the bjcp other than "we should include it." I see no difference between the two of you. Mikebe (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I came in response to the RFC, hardly mysterious. I said that I had looked at the BJCP site and it was not so bad that we should not link to it and I am continuing to discuss the issue now. Where, on the other hand, is 24.8.16.209?

I was, without warning, banned for edit warring (Martin Hogbin was not, unlike me, banned, despite also edit warring (look at the edit history). So, I guess it doesn't matter what I think, since I get banned before I can answer the above post.24.8.16.209 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are not banned now. Perhaps you could explain why it is that you feel that a link to the BJCP site should be excluded from this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You've said that before, but the question remains: if I saw an RFC about, for example, nuclear physics, a subject I know nothing about and have no interest in, why would I then respond to it? You have still never demonstrated any interest or knowledge of the subject at hand, so how would you know that the bjcp site is "not so bad"? And after the editors here who do know beer pointed out some of the problems, your support for it never stopped. You leave more unanswered questions about your role here than you do answers. Mikebe (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point of an RFC, to get new editors to have a look at something that is leading to deadlock. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, for best results here, let's please keep discussions focused on the content of the article, and not on other editors? If there's a concern about user conduct, the best venue for that is a user's talkpage. If there's a concern about a potential Conflict of Interest, please bring it up at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. But on this page, let's please keep the article talkpage strictly for discussion of the article, thanks. --Elonka 21:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. How about giving us your views on whether a link to the BJCP site should be included here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I cannot. I am willing to help here as an administrator, but in order to do so, I have to stay neutral and uninvolved. This means I can give opinions and advice on policies and dispute resolution, but not on the article content itself. It looks like you're doing the right thing with the RfC, though if it does not bring clarity to the issue, try another step from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 22:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of the editor in question is more than disruptive, it is obstructive. This has been going on for more than two years, and I think the time has come to bring this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. – ClockworkSoul 01:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. --Killing Vector (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For best results on a User Conduct RfC, it's best to show that multiple editors have each made at least one good faith effort to work this out via other means, with a collegial comment on the talkpage of the user in question. Such attempts should include diffs of behavior of concern, as well as polite thoughts about how the behavior was a problem. These comments should also include constructive suggestions on how the individual's editing behavior could improve. Has this kind of thing been done? If not, I'd recommend starting there, otherwise an RfC may get bounced back as "Try talking to them, first, and only try an RfC if other methods have not been successful." --Elonka 10:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous poster. I have never posted here anonymously. Secondly, as we had already discussed numerous times before, the bjcp fails to meet WP:RS because, among other reasons, as the bjcp officer I quoted above wrote: "The guidelines are for our own purposes and not meant to be the end all of anything or for any other purpose than our own." As we also discussed previously, the bjcp also falls into WP:LINKSTOAVOID because: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." And what are the reasons to include it? Mikebe (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

BJCP is not being used as a source so WP:RS is not relevant. It is common to link to useful and related sites from WP articles and it is reasonable in the case of this article to give a selection of links to sites connected to beer style. The sites do not necessarily have to meet the criteria for inclusion in WP, we are only including a link. Many external sites may address the subject from different perspectives from WP, for example, CAMRA is a site that concentrates on the British pub beer consumer whereas BJCP concentrates on the US homebrew market. It is quite possible that a WP reader is interested in a particular aspect of beer style and links to more specialist organizations are likely to be welcome in such cases.

Regarding factual accuracy, beer style must, by its very nature, be a matter of opinion to some degree; there are no universally accepted right answers to all beer style questions. BJCP is clearly an organization that has given some considerable thought to the subject of beer style and if we are to specifically exclude a link to their site we need to give a strong rational for so doing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll – External links

To try and provide a bit more structure to the dispute here, it might be helpful to get a sense of where different editors stand on the discussions thus far. Could each editor please post one comment below, which indicates your thoughts on how the external links should be handled? Which links should be included, which should be excluded, or what the system should be for deciding, or any other thoughts you may have on the situation. To be clear, This Is Not a Vote, but perhaps this may help to better define the current state of the discussions. Thanks, --Elonka 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding of the issue is that it can be decomposed into now three separate questions
  • With regard to the inclusion of sites relating to the BJCP style guides, the question is whether the content of the link violates WP:EL. While the standards for external links are not as stringent as those for sources, I believe it has been shown that the BJCP's content contains both misleading information and unverifiable research, with several examples already given of this in previous discussion. I furthermore understand the discussion to be considering solely whether the BJCP link should be excluded as an external link; I believe consensus exists that the BJCP style guides are not suitable as sources. I opppose inclusion of links to the BJCP's content
  • With regard to the inclusion of sites written by User:Patto1ro, in particular europeanbeerguide.net, I believe consensus has been established that these websites are suitable for inclusion in this article as external links. I think the sites may be acceptable as secondary sources but I do not believe this has been established. I support inclusion of links to europeanbeerguide.net
  • Finally, while tensions and emotions have been high in this discussion on both sides, I believe that some editors on this page have engaged in sockpuppetry and bad-faith editing and I have initiated two cases regarding those editors. --Killing Vector (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    Please stay on topic. We don't need another derailed discussion. – ClockworkSoul 09:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I am not sure why I need to say this, but experience here tells me it is still necessary: sites that either violate or fail to meet WP policies should not be used. The bjcp is an example.
  • In response to the comments below, I am adding the following: Kristen England, the continuing education director of the bjcp (email: education_director@bjcp.org) posted on Ron Pattinson's blog the following information: "The guidelines are for our own purposes and not meant to be the end all of anything or for any other purpose than our own. There are a lot of people out there that are abusing the guidelines in that they try to use them to tell people what 'styles' are supposed to be like/ have been like.... Some of the styles in the BJCP are a combination of a few different styles. Our nomenclature is not meant to be used to tell other people or other countries of what their beers are supposed to be like." (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2008/08/goethean-troll.html?showComment=1219083600000#c330659496732463376)
  • I have noticed that many of the "errors" in the bjcp style guide can be seen as an over-simplification of reality. So, for example, the Belgian tripel (http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style18.php#1c) is described as "Deep yellow to deep gold in color." In fact, three of the six Belgian Trappists make tripels that are very dark: Westvleteren, Rochefort and Achel. There are many other examples like this, but I think the words of the bjcp director should be sufficent to make the point.
  • The WP:LINKSTOAVOID includes: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The bjcp style guide includes both of these.
  • In the previous discussion last August, many editors pointed out flaws in the style guide. Now, a director, speaking on behalf of the bjcp (see link above), explains that these are not necessarily "real-world styles". How much more evidence is needed that the bjcp is simply not suitable under WP policies?
• Although I am not against home-brewing sites per se, I feel they belong in the home-brewing articles and not in the general beer articles. I have found many errors on sites like allaboutbeer.com and germanbeerinstitute.com. I think original source material should be used whenever possible. Since I write mostly about Belgian and German beer, I prefer to use original sources from those countries, rather than American home-brewing guidebooks, as has been done here. But, still, sites/sources need to meet WP standards. Mikebe (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• I am unsatisfied by the arguments that the link is unsuitable, and would prefer its inclusion. My position, however, is not entrenched, and I remain open to well-reasoned arguments. Whatever my feelings, I will support a decision that moves us towards consensus (or decision of a mediating party), and will act decisively to enforce it. – ClockworkSoul 09:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of link to BJCP for reasons given at the end of the section above. There is no reason to single BJCP out for exclusion, it is a relevant and useful link. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• BJCP are an unreliable source for knowledgeable information about the history and development of beer styles and should not be used as a source for information about beer styles. However, in an article on Beer styles it would be utterly wrong not to mention the organisation as they have had (and continue to have) a huge influence on beer styles in America and increasingly in other countries. Every American style brewpub I have been to - including Prague, Estonia, Scotland, England, France and Turkey - is brewing beer according to BJCP guidelines. As a beer lover I hate this cookie cutter approach to brewing. But I also hate pasteurised beer, and that exists, and needs to be dealt with (as it is) on Wikipedia.

BJCP HAS to be mentioned in an article on Beer styles. And when it is mentioned it HAS to be linked to. Of course. But we must be impartial, so when we mention BJCP we can (with appropriate reliable sources) show that there is a dispute about the reliability of their styles. We need to mention BJCP and give accurate, sourced information on their operation, their influence and their limitations. And when we do this, we link to their website so people can check this out for themselves. The BJCP exists. We deal with it as it is. We are not a campaign group. We show what's out there, and deal with it in an impartial manner.

I have not read through all the verbiage above, so I may have got the aim of this straw poll wrong. If I have, let me know. But to make my comment brief:

Support inclusion of external link to BJCP. And discussion of BJCP in the article. (The two have to go together - the one without the other is pointless)

Oppose using BJCP as a reliable source.

I hope that's clear enough! SilkTork *^YES! 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting idea. I would not have a problem if there were a list of such sites including, for example, CAMRA, Deutscher Brauer Bund (http://www.brauer-bund.de/bierfans/sorten/inhalt.htm), Peter Crombecq (http://www.dma.be/P/BIER/1_2.htm) and perhaps the Danske Ølentusiaster (http://www.ale.dk/index.php?id=665). I also agree with you that it must be explained that the bjcp guide is specifically designed for home-brewing contests and does not necessarily represent beers in the real world. Once this is done, I see no need for bjcp links aside from the home-brewing articles. Mikebe (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a reasonable idea, yes. Zythos also? --Killing Vector (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked on the Zythos site and couldn't find any list of styles. Peter Crombecq's list is over 10 years old, but still seems quite reasonably accurate. As SilkTork mentioned, I find it important to make it clear that the bjcp styles do not necessarily represent real-world beer styles. I also see problems with the bjcp style history summaries, perhaps we need to say something about that too. Mikebe (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of brevity, I don't think that the BJCP history summaries need to be singled out. It's probably sufficient to succinctly point out that the BJCP guide is designed to organize home-brewing competitions, and was never intended by its authors to serve as either robust guide to beer styles or a historical document. – ClockworkSoul 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your suggestion is not bad, though I would substitute "real-world" for "robust". I was just wondering - is there another organisation in the US (brewers guild, perhaps?) that offers a list of beer styles without all the explanations necessary for the bjcp list? Mikebe (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A Summary

Let's say that I belong to a cooking club. We meet occasionally and exchange recipes, cooking information, experiences, etc. Most of us have no relation to the food profession - we include a dentist, train conductor, computer programmer, etc. Now say that several members of cooking clubs around my country decide to make sort of a "super" club. Let's call it EAT. This new club will try to help the various clubs exchange information, provide a database of cooking tips, etc. Now, I come to Wikipedia and start editing article about cooking or food. I cite EAT as my source. Am I the only one who finds this a ridiculous idea?

Now substitute bjcp for EAT. The bjcp is sort of a "super" club for amateur brewers. They have come up with something they call a "style guide", but is that what it really is? As we have discussed here many times and as Kristen England has written on behalf of the bjcp, no, it is not a "real" style guide, only something for members of the club to use. The style histories in their guide, at least the ones I looked at, have no more relation to reality than the styles.

But, let's look a little deeper. How much does the bjcp spend per year on research? According to their budget (http://www.bjcp.org/annual2007.php#2), it seems to be zero. So, what is their biggest expense? What do they spend the most money on? Recognition pins. They spent $7052.43 (of a total budget of $26,328.86) on recognition pins. As I said, this is nothing more than a club for amateurs.

When I came to Wikipedia two years ago and found that the European beer articles were filled with errors, I looked where this misinformation came from. I found the bjcp. I had never heard of them before, but when I clicked on links in the articles, I could see that the mistakes came from the bjcp. So, I started correcting them and removing the bjcp links. In the last two years, I have been argued with many times, as well as personally attacked, about removing the bjcp links. But certainly, one of the strongest attacks on me came from an administrator here. He wrote: "The behavior of the editor in question is more than disruptive, it is obstructive. This has been going on for more than two years, and I think the time has come to bring this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct."

We are discussing including a link here to an amateur club. One that, by its own statement, is not suitable for public dissemination. Why are we discussing this when the link so obviously violates Wikipedia policy? Because some editors here have what I can only describe as an emotional tie to this club. Why would an administrator call my actions "obstructive" when he, in the light of day, would know that the link fails to meet any of Wikipedia's requirements? Why do other editors tell me that books by and for American amateur brewers know more about the beer of my own country than I do? Why do other editors tell me that these same books are valid sources for the cultural and historical history of my neighbour country? And, of course, what they tell me is wrong.

We have a choice here. We can either stick to Wikipedia policies and provide, as required, verifiable information. We can also abide by WP:LINKSTOAVOID ("Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.") Or we can include the bjcp. We can't do both. Mikebe (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to read any extended treatises, but on skimming this seems to be two-thirds restated argument and one-third replying to a mis-perceived hurt. Are you sure I was talking about you? Look who's been blocked lately, because I'm sure it wasn't you. You're very fond of citing policy, so I assume you're familiar with WP:AGF. Now, then, let's all outgrow our egos, start fresh, and work on an encyclopedia here, okay? – ClockworkSoul 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In reference to this post to my user talk. Hi Mikebe. I'm keeping the discussion here, because I want to keep the focus away from personal feelings and on the the substance of this article. Frankly, I don't have the time, interest, or energy to do anything else. (I also promised that I would do my best to remain as purely neutral as possible). Furthermore, these arguments have been rehashed many times already, and over time have been distilled to something like the following: "Is not! is too!". To sum things up: you feel the BJCP link introduces a degree of inaccuracy that is be "misleading" and therefore would be harmful, while others seem to feel that deletion advocates are nitpicking, and that while the BJCP isn't perfect (what is?) it isn't so flawed as to be "misleading". One sides thinks the link should be gone, the other present. Attempts at compromise have been fruitless.

I thought for a second that we were making progress, but it looks like we've backslid, so I move that we bump this very, very old argument up to dispute resolution. We've been through the various negotiation steps already (Third opinion, Editor assistance, and Requests for comment), and I don't think the mediation cabal will make much headway against two year's worth of dug in positions, so I think it is time to file a formal request for a binding mediation. Would you, Mikebe, as the primary (but not exclusive) opponent of the BJCP link agree to abide by the ruling of the the Mediation Committee? Would the primary proponents? – ClockworkSoul 21:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think progress IS being made, and it may be too soon to break that progress by jumping to an outside resolution. I think we can sort this here amongst ourselves, and while Mikebe has been campaigning perhaps too aggressively against the BJCP, and can be loud in his objections, let us not forget that much of what he says is right. In any progress there are going to be wrong steps taken, and some spats will occur, and people will continue to snap and spit and sometimes change their mind. What is MAINLY at issue here is not Mikebe's behaviour, it is how we deal with BJCP. Now, there are differing views on that, and people have to be allowed to give their views. Sometimes when giving their views some personal emotion will come into the commentary, and some perceived or actual slights will raise their ugly head. Let's not pick up on the odd moan and groan, lets instead concentrate on the issue in hand. I feel that we are nearer to working out a solution than we have ever been, and I would hate to throw this out and have to start again.

Our main problem when it comes to writing articles about beer styles is that there isn't a lot of reliable information out there. The study of beer styles is very recent, and - like it or not - BJCP have done a lot of work in organising and writing about beer styles. Now, much of that work is inaccurate. But if we see BJCP as a Wikipedia - that is it's a group of well meaning individuals who have an interest in collecting together and organising information - then we can see their strengths and weaknesses. That other people take their well meaning but amateur research too seriously is the same as when students take Wikipedia's amateur research too seriously. I swear that if you do a random search that the majority of Wikipedia articles will contain mistakes. I have discovered embarrassing gaffs in Featured articles. Let's put all this into perspective. We are "working toward" Wikipedia being reliable. Part of that "working toward" is people getting together to discuss the best way of using BJCP. I like to think of BJCP a bit like IMDB. The Film Project doesn't accept IMDB as a reliable source, but uses it as an external link. I fully take on board Mikebe's comments on the creeping influence of BJCP's errors, and it's here and now that we decide the best way to tackle that. But in tackling it, we cannot censor it. The BJCP exists, and is known, and is influential. The way to deal with it is to acknowledge in this article its existence, and to neutrally describe its mode of operation, its unreliability, and the controversy of its coverage of non-American beer styles. I think we are all agreed on that. The more problematic discussion is how to deal with BJCP in the specific beer style articles. I think the Stout article is an example of the way forward, with the Oatmeal stout section a shining example of the way we should be writing about styles. Nowhere in that article is BJCP used or mentioned. The Oatmeal stout section uses 12 different reference sources - none of them BJCP. However, when it comes to American beer styles , such as APA, it may be appropriate to mention BJCP, as brewers (like it or not) will be looking to BJCP as a guide to how to brew it. Bearing in mind that a good number of professional American brewers (such as those working in brewpub chains like Rock Bottom) will have started out as home-brewers using BJCP guidelines.

So, let's get on with discussing on how to deal with BJCP, and let's accept that there will be disagreements along the way, but that we can deal with them ourselves. Happy New Year! SilkTork *^YES! 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look below you will see that I have suggested this approach. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to concede that you make some very good points (again). There are a couple of things I would, however, like to add. Without violating confidences, I have heard on good authority that in the bjcp itself there is strong resistance to change - that management there sees no reason to "correct" their style guide. Which, given the purpose of their style guide, is not so strange. Secondly, there has been a lot of talk here, mostly in the past, on the influence of the bjcp. I have seen no evidence of that either way. However, I have a strong suspicion that the beer fan sites (ratebeer and beeradvocate) have far more influence than the bjcp, especially among professional brewers. I would simply mention de Struise and Ratebeer as an example (ask if you want details). I am not in a position to judge the bjcp and American beers. I will take your word for it and support your suggestion. And my best wishes for the new year to everyone, including bjcp supporters, except the recently departed trolls. Mikebe (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the external links could do with some reorganization. We currently have two sections with only one link in one of them. Could they be reorganized along the lines of say, general beer styles, national beer styles, (US) homebrew beer styles?

I have now done a bit or reorganization along the lines I have suggested. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. I will make two sections. Mikebe (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's leave the bjcp alone until we have agreed on text. Mikebe (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your objection to having foreign language sites in a separate section and what wording would you propose for the BJCP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make what language? For the bjcp we need to agree on how to describe it. See SilkTork's comments above. Mikebe (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to agree on how to describe the BJCP. Please suggest something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The bjcp is a US group that organises and judges amateur brewing competitions. For these events, it has created a simplified style guide that is not intended to represent real-world beer styles. That is, the bjcp guide is not comparable to the guides offered above. The style history for European beers, not being relevant, is largely inaccurate.

I think it is important to also note the inaccuracy of the style histories, but I am not so sure the best way to do it. Mikebe (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that, 'a US group that organises and judges amateur brewing competitions' will be sufficient. Remember it is an external link. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I expected of you, Martin. I'm sorry, but this is how we have discussed it above. The style guides, as you have been told repeatedly, are unique to the organisation and so cannot be compared to other style guides. The bjcp style guide includes historical information that, in four I looked at were incorrect in four, though some were worse than others. We cannot simply lead readers to incorrect information without at least a warning. Mikebe (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just take this opportunity to point out that the CAMRA style guide shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the BJCP style guide. The historical information presented in the current link is, at best, highly debatable, and it's loaded with opinion anyway; what's more, the CAMRA style definitions are, like the BJCP ones, set arbitrarily in aid of judging. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think it should go in the "Special Application" section with an explanation, I have no problem with that. Mikebe (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are telling me that both BJCP and CAMRA are wrong. Who is it that decides what the 'right' answers are? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus of scholars, as everywhere else. Part of the reason for this whole discussion is weeding out the scholarly, verifiable sources from the miasma of thirdhand information which inspires so many common beer myths. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Myths are only the beginning. This misinformation is used by some people on the beer fan forums to start debates where they can show how much they know (how "superior" they are) by citing this misinformation. The bjcp is alone among groups listed that does not restrict it's guide to its own national beers. And is also alone in providing local samples of foreign styles. CAMRA at least doesn't have those faults. But, in general, this misinformation encourages a lack of scholarship and does not reflect well on WP that we are sending people to deeply flawed information without at the very least a strong warning. Mikebe (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus of scholars in this article. I see a number of sources of information with no clear reason to choose any one of them over the others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly such sourches exist. It's just a matter of incorporating them while eschewing non-scholarly sources. --Killing Vector (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why does the article not do precisely that?

I don't know. Why doesn't it? --Killing Vector (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since the agreement we've reached is to include an explanation with the bjcp link and we have not yet agreed on an explanation, I am removing the bjcp link until we come up with something we can all agree with. Clockworksoul and I have both made suggestions. Having the links there now just says "here are some other style guides." That is not what was agreed. Mikebe (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not re-start the edit war. There was agreement to include BJCP. I came here in response to an RFC and have no axe to grind either way. I have absolutely no connection with the BJCP or any other beer-related organisation. What I am seeing is some kind of objection to the BJCP that has no substance to it. It is a beer-related organisation just like most of the other links. You claim that it is inaccurate but cannot say who determines what is accurate and what is not and that is certainly appearent from the article. The BJCP link should remain until somebody gives a good reason to exclude it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is starting an edit war, it is you. There is an agreement by both sides to include an explanation with the link. That explanation has not yet been agreed upon. When the explanation is agreed, the link will be replaced. I realise that your only purpose here is to see that the bjcp is linked, but at least respect the agreements the beer editors make. Mikebe (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mikebe, comments like "I realise that your only purpose here is to see that the bjcp is linked" are not helpful. Many, many people have pointed out your abrupt and often borderline (sometimes blatantly) uncivil tone. In the spirit of cooperation, can we try to behave like adults here and speak to one another with a little respect? (And please don't respond by pointing fingers.) &ndash ClockworkSoul 20:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't agreements need to be respected as well? Mikebe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't respect both. And as for your removal of the link, it's just a little unconventional. Usually, instead of simply deleting something that's not 100% perfect, and editor would be expected to try to fix it. Deleting is a little brusque, and unintentionally invites somebody to revert the deletion, setting off another series of very silly and pointless reversions that will waste more time and more effort until we end up... well... here. Just relax and try to remember that a little civility and politeness goes a long way. – ClockworkSoul 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We really need some more editors here or some other form of mediation. I can see no reason to exclude the BJCP or CAMRA links from a beer style page but I do not intend to start edit warring the issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and incivility: a blanket warning

I love Wikipedia. Really. I love the idea of it. I love the openness of it. I love how it encourages editors to continually improve one another's works in an endless cycle of collaboration. Unfortunately, this open format that I love so much also allows for seeming intractable wars to fester, like they have here.

That being said, let's cut the crap folks. This page, and a few related pages, have become fetid cesspools of bile and bitterness, ugly poster children of all that can go wrong when disputes are allowed to continue for too long. I understand all too well how frustrating disputes can be, and I can sincerely sympathize with how you all feel, but a number of editors on both sides of this dispute have been engaging in a variety of unsavory acts of vandalism, harassment, and wikihounding that cross the line and then some. This behavior stops now. Consider this a warning to everybody involved in this page, and continued acts of incivility will be met with blocks without further comment.

No response to this statement is necessary. – ClockworkSoul 09:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of sockpuppetry! There is a consesnsus and majority to include the bjcp link. The letter from kristen england was posted on Ron Pattinson's blog. Kristen England is aware of what is happening in these talk pages, if she chooses to respond she can, mikebe and killing vector do not speak for her.

Threats to block me, opening up sockpuppet cases, wikiquette alerts are all pathetic ad-hominen attacks. In your case, I would consider them ad "Homoman" attacks. There have been several people falling me around reverting my edits. I suspect they are either mikebe/vector/ron pattinson or editor437. My edits are valid and should be included! I have repeatedly discussed issues on talk pages and from there I edit the actual pages.

The BJCP link will be included. If mikebe or vector (both possible sockpuppets of Ron pattinson) actually pass the BJCP test, then they can speak for the BJCP. And for you clockwork, get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt dizzle guy (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I actually accused you of sock-puppetry. You may want to take a breath and read what I wrote once again. – ClockworkSoul 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems I didn't need to accuse you at all: CheckUser evidence has shown that you have been using a series of abusive sockpuppets, and for that reason you and all confirmed socks have been blocked indefinitely. – ClockworkSoul 09:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Looking over the recent history, 13 of the last 20 acts of edit warring were done by anonymous users, some of which have been blocked before and/or are suspected sockpuppets. As such, I've restricted editing of this page to registered users who are more than 4 days old. All anon users are welcome to log in and join the discussion, so long as you do you best to do so rationally. – ClockworkSoul 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would it help to have a section at the end entitled, 'Organizations connected with beer style', or similar, in which we name various organizations and discuss their roles in the development of beer style. This could be along the lines of:

A number of organizations are concerned with the definition of beer styles for specific purposes...

CAMRA is a UK based organization...

The BJCP define beer styles specifically for the judging of US homebrew competitions...

...

Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the matter? (on BJCP)

I have been thinking about this. There are a number of ways to create a system of beer styles. One way is to base them primarily on history. Beers that have much tradition in common can be categorized together this way. Another, very different way, but no less valid, is based on sensory similarities. The BJCP system, as well as that from the US Association of Brewers (used for commercial competitions like GABF and Beer World Cup), seems to be based mostly on this criterion. The BJCP Style Guidelines attempt to group beers with similar sensory profiles together. It would take much to persuade me, a brewing professional, that this is useful only in the context of homebrew competitions, as it is a powerful communication tool, as well as a departure point. Lovibond (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is not how you organise the styles, the crux of the matter is that the bjcp styles are made solely for amateur competitions and, on numerous points, do not match the real-world styles. Mikebe (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But no one has yet explained what 'real-world' styles are. Who defines them and where can I find definitive and generally accepted descriptions of them? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Beer styles were "discovered" by a British newspaper writer named Michael Jackson in the 1970s. For reasons that I don't myself quite understand, the notion of "styles" has apparently taken the US by storm, but has left most of Europe cold. In any case, I think the German brewers association, for example, probably would be in as good a position as anyone to talk about the types of beer made in Germany. Belgians, on the other hand, are more reluctant to define their beers with the amount of specifics that the bjcp uses. Here's their brewers association "beer style guide": http://www.beerparadise.be/emc.asp?pageId=727 You will notice, if you look at the bjcp guide for Belgian beers, they say what colour the beer should be and how it should taste, among other things. Interesting that Belgians themselves don't do that, isn't it? But, if you know Belgian beers, you know that the brewers association doesn't list specifics because the Belgian brewers, as a rule, don't feel it necessary to stick to "style guides." And here's the site for the Dutch brewer's association (http://www.cbk.nl/). Again, interestingly, they don't even have a list of styles or types. Furthermore, when you can read in other languages, there are many books written about beer that provide historical background and more. In the UK, there is even a book about Belgian beer written by a Brit (Tim Webb) who is well-respected by Belgian beer people. So, in summary, if you know where to look (and, preferably, can read other languages), the information is easily available. Mikebe (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That all seems quite reasonable although it is quite clear that there are no universally established and accepted definitions of beer styles.

On what do you base that statement?

The fact that, in response to my request for 'definitive and generally accepted descriptions' you have not provided any. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? That's exactly what I did. If you don't accept them, that's different issue. Mikebe (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are various organizations who which be expected to have a degree of expertise in their specialist areas. I cannot see why BJCP and CAMRA do not fit into the same category. They are both organizations with a degree of expertise and knowledge of the subject, particularly in their chosen areas of interest.

On what do you base your last sentence?

They are beer-based organizations, just like the ones you have named above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you wrote or I asked. You wrote: "They are both organizations with a degree of expertise and knowledge of the subject, particularly in their chosen areas of interest." My question was on what you base that conclusion. Mikebe (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To exclude a link BJCP or CAMRA, I would want quotations or references from more than one of the organizations that you give as authorities, clearly stating that BJCP or CAMRA views on beer style were not to be trusted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to reply to that. It would seem to me that for any reasonable, neutral person, if the bjcp says a German beer should be xyz and the German brewers association says that same beer should be abc, I'll assume the German brewers association is correct and the bjcp, as their education director has said "The guidelines are for our own purposes and not meant to be the end all of anything or for any other purpose than our own." Mikebe (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No. To paraphrase SilkTork's very reasonable statement, the BJCP and CAMRA are — for better or worse — far too large to be completely excluded. We agreed to include a commentary for the links, so let's stick to that. If I wasn't eating and breathing my graduate qualifiers, I would do it myself. As it is I haven't slept in two days. – ClockworkSoul 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, is that why that spammer I told you about is still on WP? I am not very hopeful that we will all agree on a commentary for the links. Furthermore, I don't think that the bjcp and CAMRA are even remotely comparable. Having said that, I would have no objection to writing about both organisation in the article without linking to their style guides for the obvious reasons. Mikebe (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mikebe, I am not suggesting that we use BJCP guidelines for any particular purpose, just that we include a link to their web site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The commentary will basically say (at least for the bjcp) that the styles are not real-world and the history is defective. So why would we link people to misinformation? As I said, I would find it preferable to work out a description for them in the article. The link is and always has been the problem. Mikebe (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to say of the BJCP that, 'the styles are not real-world and the history is defective' you will need to find a reliable source which says that, otherwise we must just put that they specialize in US homebrew. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is sufficient to show that scholarly works consistently define or assess styles to be one way and the BJCP's guidelines are non-representative outliers; remember that we've already agreed the BJCP is not counted as a reliable source. That said, I do support Silktork's argument that if we discuss the BJCP in the article at all, then we should include

a link to it on the page. --Killing Vector (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree most vigorously with Mikebe. I believe problem is and always has been the refusal of a very small number of individuals to accept any viewpoint which is different from theirs. Classification of beers into styles is not an exact science, and there are, as I mention above, multiple criteria that different schemes weight differently. I do not believe that placing more weight on a beer's historical pedigree gives a classification system any more verity than one that places a greater emphasis on sensory attributes. The BJCP style guidelines, as well as those of the US Association of Brewers, are no less valid than a history-based set of guidelines. One may take the position they are, in fact, more valuable as they can guide the expectation of a prospective consumer. Would it be productive for us to adopt the position that only classification schemes that are sensory-weighted should be included here, because history-weighted schemes group Rochefort 6 and Westmalle Trippel together? I think that would be closed-minded and unproductive, and inappropriate in an encyclopaedia. Well, it's just as wrong to adopt the position that only historically-based guidelines are valid. Any commentary should merely point out that style schemes place different emphasis on different criteria (if a reliable source for this can be found) and leave it at that. Lovibond (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And Martin, do not revert what I have done because as you can see above, Clockworksoul wrote "We agreed to include a commentary for the links", which I have said before. There is yet no commentary, so the links will be left out until the agreement is fulfilled. Mikebe (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted with a fair and neutral commentary, if you want to say more you must find a reliable source to support your view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Whose edit-warring now? This is absolutely not the commentary that we had discussed and I think you know that. Secondly, we are not here to satisfy your requirements. You play a role here just as the rest of us do and putting up demands like this are really a bit over the top. We have discussed the short-comings of the bjcp long before you responded to the rfc. I really think it is time for you to stop demanding this and that and start providing reliable sources for your own POV. You see nothing wrong with the bjcp history or style guides. Fine. Show us reliable sources that agree with them (not American home-brew publications). Mikebe (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a commentary that is simple, non-controversial and verifiable. If yo want to add something more you must have a reliable source, that is not my requirements but those of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should it matter whether the items cited are American? Certainly, the people of that/your region don't have some unique genetic endowment that grants them the superior ability to know and understand beery things? – ClockworkSoul 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in terms of "American" versus "not", exactly -- the problem I think Mikebe perceives, though, is the walled garden-like aspect of the homebrewing culture in America. I pointed out something like this earlier, in discussion of Ray Daniels' Designing Great Beers as a source; you end up with source A being used to support source B while source A is itself already citing source B. In the case of something less formal, like a homebrewing magazine, such an incestuous relationship might even be harder to detect because it won't be citing anything explicitly. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one, including me, is denying that the bjcp plays an active role in the US homebrewing community. The issue is verifiable research. Showing that a bjcp style or history is quoted or duplicated in another US homebrewing publication is not meaningful for two reasons: 1. the bjcp did not make up this informtion from nothing, they must have used another source and 2. what Killing Vector said - for whatever reason, there seems to be information sharing within the US homebrewing community. I won't say, for example, that the bjcp is solely responsible, but consider two examples: 1. the widespread myth in the US that Oktoberfestbier is synomous with Märzen and therefore, all Märzens are pale and 2. that IPA was invented because British brewers eager to sell their beers in India needed to develop a special beer to survive the long ocean voyage. How did these myths come to be? Because of the walled garden that Killing Vector wrote about. These are only two famous examples, there are others, though perhaps not so famous. Mikebe (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

How about we all pledge to work on aspects of this article other than the BJCP link for, say, the next week? --Killing Vector (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a moratorium, but, after that, we need to have a third party here. We have talked about this for a long time and we are getting nowhere. Mikebe (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinions

I have to say it seems absurd not to include the BJCP link on an article about beer styles. The fact that the BJCP categorisation is not wholly representative or non-conformist or even inaccurate in some cases is the besides the point: it is application of the concept that beers have styles. That is what the article is about. Wikipedia is not using the BJCP categorisation to categorise beers, it is an article about the concept of the styles and ultimately the application. BJCP is a specific occurrence of the application regardless of whether you agree with its method of categorisation. It's irrelevant whether BJCP want their information presented here, Michael Jackson (the singer) would probably prefer it if the paedo allegations weren't on his entry but the purpose of Wikepedia is to present as much verified information as possible on a particular subject. You qualify contradictory viewpoints by presenting the context - it is not up to Wikepedia to present a specific view of a subject, or to take the line of the mainly accepted view. If there is a substantial alternative view that should be presented too within the context that it is an alternative view. The fact of the matter here is that the article is about the concept of beer styles, and BJCP categorisation embraces that concept even if it's application doesn't conform to a standard widely accepted view, and even if the function of its categorisation is designed for a specific purpose. It comes down to this: BJCP embraces the concept, applies it in whichever way it does, and to not acknowledge that would in effect leave the article incomplete. It is not up to Wikepedia to stipulate what in effect constitutes beer styles and their applications which is what you are doing by omitting BJCP so the link should be included. Betty Logan (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Betty, you are really a fourth opinion. I came here in response to an RFC and my response was pretty well the same as yours. There really is no logical reason not to include a link to the BJCP site, for the reasons you say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The (alledged) Return of Sgt.Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe

Therascal99's edits appear suspiciously like those of Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe, discussed in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd), i.e., editing beer-related articles, pointing out who is Jewish, editing sports-related pages, etc. Plus, she appeared as soon as Sgt. Dizzle Guy and Lou Pepe were blocked. (Also, she is removing talk page comments) Perhaps a check-user is in order.Editor437 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but instead of making claims here based entirely on suspicion (which are only allegations and are therefore not actionable), add a request to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and we'll get a checkuser. In the meanwhile, if he's uncivil or in other ways violates WP policy, he would also be subject to the appropriate, and more immediate, measures for those. – ClockworkSoul 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to include in your request that the account was created the day after SDG and Lou Pepe were indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry. – ClockworkSoul 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Head count

It might be useful to consider the strength of opinion for and against including the BJCP and CAMRA links. Please state whether you think the article should "include" or "exclude" them:

I'm sorry, but a) could you please not remove comments from talk pages and b) as I mentioned in the comment you deleted, this head count was done before (indeed, not to long ago) and it didn't help move things along then. --Killing Vector (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we just limit this to a vote please. The discussion above didn't really move things along either, so it would be useful to know if this is a genuine sticking point or just a couple of editors being obstinate. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Include

• INCLUDE Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• INCLUDE Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Include – (Why shout?) – ClockworkSoul 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Include -- Lovibond (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Include (both) --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• include CAMRA.Patto1ro (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• INCLUDE

Exclude

Eclude BJCP Patto1ro (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Never

This discussion will never settle anything. And that is for two reasons. One, this is a policy matter, not a discussion matter. And two, those who have a connection with the bjcp (taken the exam, entered in a competition, etc.) are not likely to say that their effort was a waste of time. Therefore, they will always support the bjcp. And I fully understand that.

A number of people have pointed out that the bjcp "are an unreliable source for knowledgeable information about the history and development of beer styles." No one yet has denied that. As I have pointed out several times, the reasons we give for excluding the bjcp as a WP:RS are precisely the reasons the site falls under WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But, some people like to point out that styles are not an exact science and we need to have several points of view. Well, the problem with that is that the bjcp itself has said that their style guide is not intended for this very purpose. And I must agree with them. They have made a very simplified version of many styles and do not represent "another view" but an abbreviation of a view. Actually, if the bjcp stuck, like other beer organisations, to the beers styles of its own country, I would not have so much problem with it. It's a shame that when I asked a while ago if there was another organisation in the US that was more appropriate, no one replied.

I must also disagree that the bjcp is "too big" or "too important" to not list. The bjcp is not big at all. In fact, if we use CAMRA as an example, they have 96,000 members in a country of 60 million (I am rounding off the numbers). By that count, the US, with a population of 300 million, the bjcp should have 480,000 members to be comparable. In fact, they have about 2,600. The bjcp is also something of a "secret" organisation - aside from US homebrewers, it seems to be virtually unknown in even the US.

Bjcp importance: I also travel to pubs around Europe and I have never once seen a sign saying: "these beers or the beer information are provided by the bjcp." In fact, aside from the UK and Denmark, I hardly see any US beers. But, the point is: are countries outside the US modifying their beers for the US market? And the answer to that is definitely "yes." But, these are not to meet bjcp standards, these are to meet the expectations of ratebeer and beeradvocate members. The "extreme beers" and the over-hopped beers are not the product of the bjcp, they are the product of the two fan sites.

And finally, ClockworkSoul wrote in his edit summary for the second (or is it third or fourth?) vote: "As for this being a waste of time, we've made no progress in 2 years, so this thing coun't hurt." Well, it wasn't two years ago, or even one year ago or even half a year ago that you wrote those wonderful words: "I think both the coin flip and you agree: we don't need the link. That settles that (I hope)! The link can stay off. – ClockworkSoul 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)"

And, that ladies and gentlemen, was the conclusion the last time we had this exact same discussion. Mikebe (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if that is the case it will have to be referred for arbitration if it is clear that consensus cannot be attained. Looking over some arbitration cases involving disputes about content the outcome tends to favour including content if a significant number of editors support the inclusion, so if I were you I would seriously think about the outcome of the next step. The decision can be made for us which probably will be to include the links given the strength of support, or you can accept they will be included and help create the context in which they are included. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)