Talk:Tripel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of Style Guidelines

Why has the link to the BJCP style guidelines been removed? The reason is cited as "Fictious style guidelines link" when, in fact, the link is real and reputable as well. I don't want to start a revert war so I'm asking for clarification before reverting the removal. Beakerboy 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The BJCP is not an authority on Belgian beer styles. It's an authority on American homebrewing competition classes. Patto1ro 07:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you take this approach and I also don't want to start a revert war. The first problem is that the "style guidelines" are designed for homebrewers, because that is what the BJCP does. They are not designed for consumers -- people who want to taste and appreciate the beer.

• Secondly, the BJCP are amateurs located in the US with limited access to European beers. Among US homebrewers, they may be "reputable", but I can assure you in Europe they are a laughing-stock (among the very, very few Europeans who have even heard of them)! If you consider that a given type of beer might have hundreds of local examples, of which only a few are exported to the US, perhaps you can understand how these "styleguidelines" based on only a limited sample become ridiculous/fictious instead of "reputable."

• Think of it like this: imagine an article about the structure of the US government which cites a Cuban college magazine article for its authority. Mikebe 07:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the point raised by Patto1ro to some extent. Although, while not an authority on Belgian beers in the way that an author or researcher devoted to the subject is, the information provided is still relavent and accurate and with greater authority than, say my word. My thought is, instead of removing an accurate and relavent source, it should be replaced with one of either greater relevence, accuracy, or authority, none of which was done.

I completely disagree with the first bullet by Mikebe. In order to brew good beer a person must appreciate good beer. 98% or the guideline which was removed discussed the aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel of the beer and only a handfull of phrases are of a technical nature.

Mikebe's second point also suffers from some logical flaws. Just because a beer is not available on the US market does not mean it con not be tasted by a US citizen. I know several people who have taken european vacations for the sole purpose of tasting beer. Two years ago, I was sent to England for a week for work and sampled dozens of real ales which are not available in th States. I became well aquainted with these beers in my time there, not an expert, but more aquainted than most in the US (given that most people in the US love Bud Light).

The last bullet is a fairly pejorative way of looking at the situation. I'd consider it more like citing allmusic.com for their musical genre clasification system. Most every system is sufficiently complex that creating a 100% accurate clasification system is nearly impossible, yet that should not prevent one from trying. Just because the Kingdom, phylum, class, class, order, genus, species system is not 100% accurate with respect to organisims, does not mean it should be completely abandoned. I have yet to see a better beer clasification system than the BJCP, and theirs does give good information.

I am not a BJCP member(not that it should matter), and have no ulterior motives than to help people learn about beer. If you know more about Belgian beer because you live in The Netherlands and speak Dutch then, great. I'm happy to see such a person help out, just don't assume we're all Philistines.Beakerboy 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate that we can discuss this like adults, which, so far we have. I don't recall calling you a Philistine, so I am not clear why you brought this up.

Further, I find it very odd that you say you agree "to some extent" with Patto1ro's point, but "completely disagree" with my first point because we both made the same point!

Next you say "In order to brew good beer a person must appreciate good beer." Well, this is a big problem with the Wikipedia beer pages. This is an encyclopedia, isn't it? This is not a brewing handbook. Why do you think it is necessary to give brewing instructions to people using this encyclopedia who might simply want to learn what kind of beer they might enjoy drinking?

Your last point (classification systems) relates to, as I understand it, home brewing competitions. In western Europe, several countries also have classification systems for beer, but these generally are for the purpose of paying taxes and the classifications frequently are simply different levels of alcohol. So, again, your classification system seems to be designed for home brewing.

I also appreciate that you say you want "to help people learn about beer." But, shall we then try to give people explanations regarding enjoying the beer, rather than making it? Mikebe 14:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mikebe. Technical homebrewing specifications do not belong in an encyclopedia, other than in an article specifically about homebrewing. The BJCP guidelines are so riddled with errors and invented beers styles that they have no place in Wikipedia, especially when discussing non-American styles of beer. As Tripel is a Belgian style, Belgian sources are the true authority. Patto1ro 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagreed with Mikebe because the style guidelines are designed for consumers because good homebrewers must be knowledgable about the beer style at hand...not homebrewed beer, but beer. Yet is it not an authority. Like I said It's more of an authority than I am, but I'm certain there are better. If you know what they are as you suggest, add them instead of solely removing citations. Beeradvocate is for comercial beer and has many of the same Belgian classes as the BJCP (Strong Dark for example), so I'm missing something. Also the current description of the Tripel style is similar to the BJCP description. Are you suggesting it's wrong? If so I would have understood a change in that accompanying the deletion. This is the last I'll say, and if there are any resources you suggest I read, please let me know, because it seems i'm in the minority on this issue.Beakerboy 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As promised, since I am a Dutch speaker, I have looked a little more into your question about report that Witkap brewed the first triple. On the Witkap site (http://www.witkap.be/), they say that their Witkap Pater Triple was not developed until sometime after 1979 on assignment for another brewery (De Drie Linden). In 1981, it was taken over by the Witkap brewery, which is not actually called that, but rather Brouwerij Slaghmuylder. So, since this is over 40 years after Westmalle, I hope you now see how ridiculous this report was.

To some of your comments above: the Strong Dark Belgian style of the BJCP is completely fictious -- it does not exist. If you are interested, here is a very complete list of Dutch/Belgian beer types (it's in Dutch, but you should be able to figure most of it out): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biersoorten

The definition you have now is slightly wrong, but also very general. This sentence "Like Duvel, it was originally made to compete with the all encompasing success of the Pilsner style." however, is complete nonsense. First of all, Duvel is not a triple, it is considered a blond beer (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvel_Moortgat). Secondly, other than colour, the pilsener and the triple have almost nothing in common. The pilsener should have less than 5% abv, while Duvel is 8.5% and Westmalle Triple is 9.5%. I will be happy to correct the page (not right away, sorry), but I will include taste descriptions in the page rather than sending users to external sites. If I can find a site with more detail in English, I will include that. As for recommended reading, I'm very sorry, but most of the sites with beer information I know are in Dutch. However, if I come across one, I will post it here for you. Mikebe 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Like Duvel, it was originally made to compete with the all encompasing success of the Pilsner style." Well two reasons why this is unlikely to be true:

• until recently (sometime in the last 10 years) Westmalle Tripel was considerably darker and a shade of amber rather than blond.
• before WWII pils was NOT the dominant style in Belgium (nor in Germany, for that matter)

Patto1ro 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As promised, I've rewritten the page with references. If you'd like me to add anything, please let me know. BTW, if you are interested in more information on this topic, I highly recommend the Tim Webb book, although the latest version has dropped Holland. I mean no offense, but I will nominate the Belgian Dark page for speedy deletion as it is not a real beer style. I hope you find this new version of the page useful. Mikebe 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New uncited comments

Does anyone have a source for the comments that the Tripel style was developed to compete with Pilsners? I wouldn't think monks would be worried about competition as they are not looking for a profit.

The same user added that recent reports claim that it originated with the Witkap brewery in the late 1920s and was soon copied by the Westmalle brewery. Has anyone else seen these reports? I'm tempted to remove both comments, but would like another's opinion. Beakerboy 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

These comments are based only on ignorance. Much of the existing information on this page is based on the same source. I suggest you read "Trappist. Het bier en de monniken" by Jef van den Steen for an authoritative history of the Trappist beers.

If you can't read Dutch, then I suggest you let Dutch speakers correct all the errors here.

I am not trying to be offensive, but I find it very sad that contributions to an "encyclopedia" are made by people who lack the knowledge to write/edit about a topic. And, yes, I speak Dutch. When I have the time, I will try to fix some of the errors here. Mikebe 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Triple Fermentation

What is the source of the following statement:

"The name refers to the triple fermentation process used during brewing, which is accomplished by adding yeast (often of different varieties) three times during the brewing process, and leaving the resulting brew unfiltered"

In Michael Jackson's Ultimate Beer, he states:

"Terms such as single, double and triple date from times before widespread literacy and correspond to the streangth of the beer"

Beakerboy 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Do you have a page # for a cite on that, since Michael Jackson holds more authority than BA. --Shbob

Style or designation?

Is "Tripel" the name of a style, or is it a designation? If it is a style, what defines it as such, i.e., what characteristics do these beers have in common? If it is a designation, it should be removed from the list of beer styles. What is the concensus? 129.21.57.211 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends who you ask. The concept of "Beer Style" is not a Belgian philosophy. It's all just beer. Americans like to put boxes around things to draw comparisons, thus the big American beer style thought process. Generally a Tripel will be the third strongest beer made by a Trappist Abbey, and many are light in color. Thus, In the US a brewer may make just a "Tripel"...a high alcohol, pale ale, without a dubbel. So American Tripels are a "style" while in Belgium it's more of a designation. Mikeb will certainly have an opinion on this.Beakerboy (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Beakerboy is essentially correct in what he writes. The beer was developed at a Trappist monastery in the 1930s and imitated by some secular brewers after the war. In both the cases of the Belgian secular brewers and other non-Belgian breweries, it is just a marketing term which does not really mean anything. An American brewer, for example, could make any strong beer and then just call it a tripel. Of course, this is not limited to just the tripel - there are many, many examples of beers that are brewed (mostly in the US, but not only) and given a name of a famous type of beer as a marketing gimmik. But, in answer to your question, it is not a "style" in Belgium or the US. It is only a marketing term. Mikebe (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)