Talk:Beer style/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Interim summary on Special Application links

This is an attempt at an interim summary. It is time for a section break anyway. First, let me make a number of points clear. I am not here to ban people or give them "official warnings" (whatever they are). I am not going to chase sockpuppets and get them banned. I am not getting involved in other related articles. I am not listening to anyone who tells me to ignore what anyone says. I simply do not have time for any of these. I am here simply as a person who has the tool to protect the article to stop the revert edits and try to get some progress towards a solution. I am listening to everybody and accepting what they say about the specific point in good faith, while ignoring attacks on others.

Surprisingly only five editors other than myself have contributed to this discussion. In addition, Killing Vector made his view clear by reverting to the version I then protected. He has commented on my talk page. The five, in order of first appearance in the section, with their opinion on the issue, were:

• Betty Logan - retain the two links as they are now.
• Patto1ro - retain the two links as they are now as compromise.
• Mikebe - remove all reference to BJCP. No view on CAMRA.
• Martin Hogbin - retain the two links as they are now.
• Oshcoshbigosh - appears to say retain the two links as they are now.

That seems to be a very clear consensus. I hope I have been fair to the views expressed. After a lot of thought, I fail to find Mikebe's view in any way convincing. It is an extreme view which seems to be still fighting to delete the article on the BJCP, which was kept after discussion at articles for deletion. Having an external link does not tell the reader that BJCP are influential or even correct. It just tells them that this might be extra interesting reading. The BJCP have an influence in the US, as CAMRA does in the UK. They should have a place in "External links". I am still of the opinion that they should be listed like the other external links with no sub-heading, but nobody has supported that and it has been opposed.

So, I am going to keep a watch on this article and protect it again, after reversion, if these links are removed, other than of course after a clear indication of a change of consensus here. Shall I remove the protection now or wait a few more days? Is anyone burning to edit the article? Should I remove it completely or change it to semi-protection. My own feeling is that it is best to leave it protected for a few more days and then alter the protection to semi-protection. I will take note of what people say. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I support inclusion of both links. 1Z (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the links are concerned, my only concern here now is to preserve whatever the consensus of legitimate editors is and to nail sockpuppets. This article has fundamental problems, problems like lacking a clear, sourced definition of what it's about, that are being neglected because of the tussle over these external links.

With regard to what links to include, I still believe that equating the BJCP with CAMRA is false; CAMRA has had measurable effects on government policy and industry practice backed by a mass movement, the BJCP has had none of those things; and furthermore, CAMRA is not a reliable style source either. Just because something is available as a hyperlink doesn't mean it's a valid source, it just means it's convenient; and when that source is proven to be unreliable, as I believe User:Patto1ro's extensive research into primary sources has shown, it should be thrown out. Nonetheless, if it is the consensus of the editors (and I also do not see that such a consensus exists either way) says the BJCP links should stay, then that is the consensus I'll defend. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it not "BJCP link", rather than "BJCP links"? I think there is only one. You all keep raising issues that puzzle me. I do not see that BJCP is equated with CAMRA. Note neither CAMRA or BJCP are sources in the article. They are separate external links. However, if you think they are equated in some way, then surely following my suggestion of removing the heading would solve that. I think all of you are complicating matters. External links are not a big deal. Just decide what you want and yes, it may mean compromising, and then stick to it. That means you can concentrate on the article which has indeed been sadly neglected. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I say "links" because the discussion regarding their inclusion affects a number of other beer style articles, like for example Brown ale. I mention CAMRA because you mention it in your summary and because inclusion of a CAMRA beer style guide link representing a British perpective of some kind has been proposed in the past. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Oshcoshbigosh is a sockpuppet. --Killing Vector (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently back as User:KeepTheBJCP. 1Z (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame that this article has been so unstable. I would like to get back into it and do some work, bring in some more reliable sources - but I hesitate to work on an article that is the subject of edit warring. I think that Bduke has done some good work here in attempting to bring order to the situation, and should be thanked for giving up so much of his time on such an unrewarding and tedious task. And also thanks to ClockworkSoul who made a serious effort earlier on to sort this out, until it wore him down.

In the archived discussions it is clear that there is a strong consensus that in an article on beer styles that the BJCP should be mentioned, which would include as such a link to their site to confirm their existence and what they do. The BJCP, love 'em or loath 'em, have had some influence on the topic of beer styles. There is also consensus that they are a questionable source when it comes to discussions on individual beer styles - though I don't think there has ever been agreement on an outright ban on using them as a link in other beer style articles. My feeling - and we may have to search archived discussions on this - is that links to BJCP are to be discouraged as an authoritative source, but allowed as an informative source, in much the way that IMDB and RateBeer are used as informative sources rather than reliable sources.

If you are including external links to organizations defining beer styles, the Brewers Association produces beer styles for commercial competitions in the United States such as the Great American Beer Festival and the World Beer Cup. Their guidelines can be found at http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/publications/beer-style-guidelines BeerEnthusiast (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

mikebe

Mikebe, because he is so strongly critical of BJCP, and because he - as often happens on the internet - is sometimes blunt and rude when talking to and about others, has been somewhat blamed for much of the problems on this article. However, looking at recent edits, much of the instability has come from BJCP sockpuppets. Now, it may be the case that Mikebe's strong stance against BJCP has stirred up trouble, though I think we should allow a little good faith here and conclude that Mike has had his say on this talkpage, and won't be causing any problems in the article itself. However, if it is the case that Mike's aggressive stance is the provocative cause of conflict, then if he continues to wage a war against BJCP on Wikipedia it may be necessary to look into a RFC on Mike. A RFC has been suggested in the past, but I've stood against that as being too extreme, preferring to allow Mike's own common sense and community spirit to rule the day. We can allow dissent and alternative views, and Mikebe has raised interesting issues here. But, as has been shown by the enormous efforts that have gone into dealing with the BJCP link on this article, there is a limit to how far we can allow dissent before it simply becomes vexatious and unproductive. Mike - I think the time has come for you to consider carefully how you approach the topic of BJCP, how you address fellow editors, and how you deal with references to BJCP in articles you read or edit. The community are reaching the limit of their patience with you. SilkTork *^YES! 23:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maureen Ogle on corn and rice in American beer

The quotation from Maureen Ogle about how corn and rice were added to beer because it tastes so darn great gives the impression that American beer has not been lightened and cheapened as a corporate cost-cutting measure, a point which seems unrealistic. Also: rice is a domestically-produced US ingredient?! — goethean ॐ 12:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's grown in (at least) Louisiana, Texas and California. http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/crops/rice/statistics/ http://www.calrice.org/ http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-15-voa50.cfm BeerEnthusiast (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)