Talk:Hoegaarden (beer)

Top

With the entry "Currently following beers are brewed in Hoegaarden: Witbier, Das, Speciale, Grand Cru, Verboden Vrucht and Julius. As of December 2005 the brewery is threatened with closure." Does anyone have a source for the new information? Cafe Nervosa | talk

I'd believe it's this: [1], [2] and this one from November 30, 2005, from InBev which says really nothing [3]. Still it's sad. feydey 22:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the brewery currently located in Hoegaarden or not? Eric Rosenfield 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

" .. as long as the third gulp completes the pint. Note: this assumes a glass size of 25 cl..." This needs clarification. You can't fit a pint into a 25cl (or even a 50 cl) glass. Maproom 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with the "tradition" section... Why was it removed? David Rogers (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know what the implements are in the logo? One looks like a bishop's crook, but what's the other? 209.167.21.34 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question: from http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/celis.html: two overlapping shields, one with the hand of a Bishop holding a Staff (Crosier), and the other with a hand holding a Mashing Paddle. ("Moutstok" (literally ("Malt Stick")) 209.167.21.34 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hoegaarden is known for its superior refreshment" this doesn't sound neutral or citable to me 72.12.106.247 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dietary information

This section keeps being removed. The purpose of this section is to include information about the ingredients, nutritional value and packaging and whether it is suitable for vegetarians/coleiacs etc. This is the section so far: [4]

This keeps being removed on the grounds it is 'irrelevant'. How exactly does the editor that removes it qualify the argument that information about the products that the brewery produce is 'irrelevant'. Surely all verified information about the product, especially its ingredients, are relevant on an article about the products and the company that makes them? Product information is often included on many other article pages so why is it a no-no on a brewer article? Some questions for the editor to consider:

• Do you accept that some people who look up Hoegaarden might want information on the ingredients?
• Do you accept that some people might want to know if the beer is suitable for vegetarians/coeliacs?
• Would you object to a section on a brewer page qualifying a brewer's 'organic ale' credentials, if not why do you object to a section about the beer's ingredients?

No explanation has been given, just the constant removal of cited information about the products that the company produces. I would be very grateful if the editor in question would explain his actions here rather than constantly removing the content.Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant. We wouldn't put dietary information at an article for a restaurant (let's say California Pizza Kitchen), so why this beer "manufacturing" article. Also, people can have their own standards for what constituents "vegetarian/vegan-friendly." Friends of mine won't go to any restaurant serves meat nearby. I'm still vegetarian but I'm not that strict. I'm not a fan of random websites that define vegetarian, whatever, in their own terms. If there was some general health definitions, then it could be relevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Ricky. The definition for what constitutes 'vegetarian' is fairly standard. 'Vegan' is a lot more confusing, for instance with Hoegaarden while the contents are technically vegan the product might not be deemed vegan by virtue of its packaging (hence the term 'vegan friendly'. That's why I have opted to go with statements by the brewers themselves and third party sources such as the vegetarian society on some of the other articles. Some brewers don't state their product is vegetarian or vegan, but that their products do not contain animal byproducts etc. The debate however is not about the nature of the terms, but whether such infomration that the brewer releases about its products should be included (that includes ingredients, nutritional information, gluetn/coeliac/vegetarian/vegan information) etc.

On the Pizza Kitchen article the article is clearly limited to the business infrastructure. It would be out of place to list the ingredients. However, if someone added a menu of the pizzas available would that be out of place? And if they did would information about the ingredients of the pizzas then be out of place? At the moment the Hoegaarden article lists the products but yet you are arguing that we can not document any information about those products.

So I have some questions:

1) Do you consider that product information is irrelevant when document Hoegaarden products? For instance, if there was an article dedicated entirely to Hoegaarden products would it be irrelevant to list such information then?

2) And if you do not think that information about Hoegaarden products is irrelevant, where would you suggest such information is placed? Would it make better article sense to remove the product list from the Hoegaarden article (after all Pizza Kitchen article doesn't list its pizzas) and create a new article called "Hoegaarden beers". Then there will be two articles, one for the brewery and for its beer range and the product information about its beers? What are your views on this?

After all if you removed the product information from the pepsi article that would most likely be construed as vandalism, so surely there must be a place for such information? I think if someone seriously doesn't want the information on this article then they should make a serious suggestion to where I should put it, because at the moment you're just saying that product information about Hoegaarden beers is not permissable on Wikipedia. If they can make a decent suggestion as to where I can document product information about Hoegaarden beers then we're virtually home aren't we?

Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think splitting the article into separate business/product articles along the lines of the pepsi co/pepsi articles resolves the conflict. Please let me know what you think. Is this a satisfactory solution to everyone? Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict. You came, unasked, and put in what is best irrelevant information and what is worst, spam. You reverted every edit that anyone made for two days. You have acted in a disruptive and uncivil way. I am not at all satisfied with what you have done and will revert it. DO NOT REVERT. If you don't like it, post on the talk page. Mikebe (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I will ask you again:

• Why is saying a beer is suitable for vegetarians considered spam or irrlevant when it's permitted on other articles?
• Where should product information about Hoegaarden beers be placed?

These are two reasonable questions which you are refusing to answer. It's pretty obvious that by refusing to answer these two points you do not have the integrity of the article at heart.Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When you speak to me in a civil way, we can discuss. Until then, I suggest you do some reading. Mikebe (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't wish to contribute to the discussion then the outcome won't involve you. After all, resolutions on wikipedia are achieved through consensus so it is entirely your decision as to whether you are involved in that process. I personally would like everyone to be satisfied with the outcome, but I can live with it if everyone except you is satisfied with the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the references

Wikipedia states that self-publishes sources can be used in certain cases: "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution.[5] but states "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons".[6]. This caveat clearly doesn't apply here.

The references I provide are legitimate in that they publish CORRESPONDENCE with the brewer or distributor themselves. This is clearly an acceptable use of a primary source as long as the information is clearly identified as a statement and not a fact: "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion unless the that specific interpretation, analysis or conclusion is explicitly stated in the primary source (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction, but a letter by the Duke of Wellington specifically analyzing the Battle of Waterloo would be a reliable source for a statement as to his analysis of that battle)."[7]

I have included references from two such websites with independent correspondence. There is no legiitmate reason to believe the information supplied is inaccurate or falsified. The source clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for eligibility in the absence of a secondary source from a journal or news publication. If you feel that the sources are insufficient then feel free to add a 'fact' flag to try and strengthen the reference, but ultimately the information added does not pose a legal threat to Wikepedia from the brewery, so given that the information specifically addresses the products, and the references quotes direct correspondence I see no argument to remove the section on the grounds that it is 'unsafe'.

Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've raised an AfD on Hoegaarden products as I don't think that is the way to handle disputes. dougweller (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug, where should product information about Hoegaarden products be put then? Do we have them on this article or a separate one. I have asked this question a million times now, but WHERE should information about Hoegaarden beers be put? If you are going to object to what action has been taken then you could at least provide an alternative solution. Are we going to have a Product information section for ingredients, nutrition etc on this article or do we go the Pepsi route and split the article? Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any information on the products belongs here. There isn't enough information to warrant a separate article. I wouldn't say that ingredient lists or nutritional information belong in an encyclopedia article, but information on vegetarian/vegan acceptibility does seem like the kind of thing that does belong here. In answer to the questions that seem to have been a problem above, I'd also suggest that sources published by the brewery themselves are perfectly acceptable for this purpose. WP:V allows self-published sources to be used for non-contentious claims about the originator of the claims, and I don't see how these claims could be considered contentious. JulesH (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already CSD'd the fork under G3, so it's gone. I do agree that the information should be presented in this article, as it pertains to the subject. However, the issue has been raised that the sources provided for the information that Betty Logan is adding do not conform to WP:RS. Perhaps we could get one of the reverters to come to the talk page to elaborate on their edit summary. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks that when the content fork was created that Betty Logan added new sources that may indeed pass WP:RS and make the information acceptable for all parties to add to the article. Please review and comment:

• http://www.vegsoc.org/awards/2003/winenoms.html
• http://www.vegsoc.org/press/pressarchive/2003/pr48.html

She also reworked the text to read: "Hoegaarden is suitable for vegetarians. In 2003 Hoegaarden was nominated for the Vegetarian Society's annual vegetarian awards in the Best Vegetarian Wine or Beer category, and after being vetted to ensure they meet the standards of the Vegetarian Society were shortlisted for the award." Does anyone have a problem with these new sources and the new text for a new "Dietary Information" section? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks as though you've come up with a satisfactory solution, and kudos to Betty Logan for finding better sources. dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a brewery and its beer. Articles about vegetarian or other subjects, whether related to this beer or not, belong in a separate article. Betty Logan has been edit warring on this article in order to include information solely of interest to vegetarians. Why not keep information for vegetarians in one article and information beer drinkers in another? I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that there would be a big overlap between vegetarians and beer-drinkers. Mikebe (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many articles about products that say whether they are suitable for vegetarians or not. Surely the article is there to offer information to whoever should seek it? Some people will look up the article because they want to read about the history of the company and not have the slightest interest in the beer's vegetarains status. Some people will look up the article to see if the beer is suitable for vegetarians and not have the slightest bit of interest in the history of the company. I don't really see the distinction. Surley the article is there to offer information that a signifciant number of people might want to know?Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it halal? Kosher? CO2 neutral? Nutfree? We don't provide such information unless it is an essential aspect of the product or is otherwise extensively discussed in reliable, independent sources. With independent sources, I don't mean subject-specific groups like vegsoc, but e.g. newspapers that for some reason would discuss such aspects (e.g. as part of a scandal or something. If the vegsoc awards for Hoegaarden were discussed in independent reliable sources, then they are relevant enough to be included. Otherwise, they have no place here. Fram (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the official VegSoc website not a reliable source for information about the VegSoc awards? That would be like saying the official Academy Awards site is not a reliable source for the Oscars. Or that the Krufts site is not a reliable for the Krufts awards. Other reliable sources can only reference what VegSoc release to them about the awards, so why would a Veg Soc press release published in The Guardian be a reliable source for that information but the VegSoc site itself isn't? Many consumables are registered with VegSoc and it is generally regarded as the most authoritive and independent advisor of a product's vegetarian status in the UKBetty Logan (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable, they are just not independent. If not one newspaper, magazine, ... outside vegsoc even mentions that Hoegaarden has been nominated, then what is the value of that nomination for Hoegaarden or the outside world? Being approved by VegSoc is not an essential or important characteristic of any beers from this brewery, and thus should not be included in this article. Fram (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

VegSoc is in accreditation body, just like the Organic Soil Association. Would you object to Organic Soil accreditation being mentioned on an Organic Ale article? The Vegetarian Society is a reputable source for a product's vegetarian status hence it's widespread application and general acceptability by consumers. However, as you full well know it can not be independent from its own accreditation process and Wikepedia actually accommodates such sources: "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction)." So to use the Vegetarian Society as a source of information about their own awards and accreditation process is acceptable in this instance because it is a statement of fact about their own process. The admin contributors above accept the Vegetarian Society as reliable source in this respect.Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

VegSoc is reliable, I have already said that. What we need is an independent reliable source (or multiple ones) indicating that the vegetarian status of Hoegaarden is of interest. The fact that Hoegaarden had been nominated for a VegSoc award does not seem to have generated any interest in newspapers or magazines, so why should we include it? If Organic Ale thinks the Organic Soil accreditation is important, or if outside bodies think that accreditation is important, then it may be included there. Does Hoegaarden find the VegSoc important enough to mention it anywhere at all? Fram (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of independent sources that indicate that the vegetarian status of beers is of interest. Does it have to reference Hoegaarden directly? Surely sources showing a market trend in the interest of the vegetarian status of beer is sufficient? What about a source like this, The Good Beer Guide: [8] that also details whether a beer is suitable for vegetarians. If it is deemed to be of interest in a published authoritive guide to beer "Britain’s original, number one, independent guide to Beer and Pubs" then surely the vegetarian status of beers is relevant? Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with the Hoegaarden brewery anymore, Betty, so would you please move this to your own talk page? Besides, how many administrators have to tell you that you are wrong before you listen to them and just move on? Mikebe (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which administrators have said I am wrong? The admins that have contributed to this discussion have stated that i) the information is eligible for inclusion and ii) that VegSoc is an acceptable source for such information. The discussion must take place so we can work to a consensus. If you don't want to be a part of that process that is your decision. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-read my first sentence please. And plenty of the admins disagree with you, as do I. Mikebe (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a process on Wikipedia for determining that. If plenty of admins disagree with me then they will have the opportunity to voice their disagreement. Betty Logan (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that it should matter, but I am an admin... But admins have no more or less say in content matters than other editors do. Fram (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice you have not responded to my question, Fram. You say there has to be an independent and reliable source that a beer's vegetarian status is notable enough to include, so I put the question to you again: if a publication such as "The Good Beer Guide" notes that a beer or beer range is suitable for vegetarians does that fulfil your criteria for the inclusion of the information in the article? Betty Logan (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So I take it no-one has an objection to the inclusion of such information then if a reputable book about beers and breweries include such information? Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian/dietary inclusion discussion

Since this is relevant to a good proportion of beers including many of the mainstream ones then maybe the debate is best had in the context of the beer Wiki project. I don't fancy having this dicussion about every beer that is suitable for vegetarians. By moving the discussion over to the Beer Wikiproject page everyone involved in the articles can have their say. I've started the discussion here: Dietary information on beer and brewery articles Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is certainly relevant here. See also the current cfd [9] for Category:vegetarian beers. Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: suitability of including Hoegaarden beer's vegetarian status in the article

Some editors oppose the inclusion of information about a beer's vegetarian suitability on the grounds it is not relevant, while others regard it as the type of information that is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia articles . Opinions regarding the eligibilty and suitability of such information are required. Betty Logan (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts: I'd think that a non-vegetarian beer would be more worthy of comment than a vegetarian beer would be. Beers canonically are made from grains, water, and yeasts. (But yeasts, being fungi, are closer to animals than to plants.) I know that some brewers and vintners use isinglass as finings. My understanding is that this is now fairly rare or obsolete, but there may be some traditionalists who use it. There have been stouts or porters brewed with oysters. Some beers add lactose for sweetness, which is traditionally "milk sugar", and perhaps a few vegans might object. I'm not sure that milk is the only source of lactose. That pretty much exhausts the non-vegetarian beers as far as I can imagine.

If a beer is brewed with non-vegetarian ingredients, and that fact can be confirmed in reliable sources, I'd say add it - not in a separate section, but in a general discussion of the ingredients. And adding information about the glue used on the labels definitely veers into fringe concerns. (Most people don't lick the labels. I do. But I'm weird that way.) And if you are for the moral equality of yeasts, and think they should run free and not be exploited by brewers, you probably don't care what else goes into the beer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article Vegetarian beer which would aim to sum up the information that people require on beer and vegetarianism. Almost all beers produced are free from animal products, and saying so in every article is rather redundant. It would be like going through every article in this cat - Category:Breads and saying in each one that it is vegetarian, apart from the breads that contain honey or milk or eggs. Also it doesn't help to create a category for Vegetarian beers and then include Shepherd Neame, one of the few breweries in the world that makes non-vegetarian beer! SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was article split.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Hoegaarden Brewery → Hoegaarden (beer) — The title of this article does not reflect what this article is about. There is absolutely zero information about the actual brewery in this article. This article is about Hoegaarden the beer, not the brewery in which Hoegaarden beer is created. To conform with WP standards, I propose that this article be moved to Hoegaarden (beer), since there is already a Hoegaarden article on the Belgian municipality. Comments? SnottyWong talk 13:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this move? If not, I'm going to make the move. SnottyWong talk 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This move has been complicated; there are at this point two articles Hoegaarden Brewery and Hoegaarden (beer) with one talkpage, and the history predominantly at the Brewery article. As such, this request seems void.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

The Dutch pronunciation looks improbable enough (and inconsistent with that given at Hoegaarden) but does anyone have any actual evidence for the claimed English one, or is it just some editor's recommendation? In Britain it's always ˈhəʊgɑdən. Flapdragon (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Interbrew

The page reads: "After a fire in 1985, several brewers offered their help — as is traditional in Belgium. One of these was the largest brewer in the country, called Interbrew" Interbrew didn't exist until 1988. How could they have lent money in 1985? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.142.198 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)