Talk:Tripel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Westvleteren

I ask the user, mikebe, to show me a reputable source claiming that the Westvleteren 12 is a tripel beer. The Westvleteren 12 can be categorized as a quadrupel. I know the terms, dubble, tripel, and quadrupel do not refer to the number of fermentations or multiples of strength. A tripel has a floral taste and is lighter in color. A quadrupel is darker in color and has a very malty taste. I was the one removing the Westv 12 from the list of tripels, I was criticized for my sources (they were something though) and mikebe went ahead and added it back with no source. I welcome you with open arms to prove me wrong. It is the undisputed number one beer in the world and its type is being debated, rediculous. Kxmjb (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer first. In the Belgian Beer article it states "(a tripel) is, traditionally, the strongest (in alcohol) of a range of Trappist beers. Although the version developed by Westmalle in 1934 was blond, the color can range to near-black (Westvleteren and Rochefort). The term "tripel" has since been adopted by non-Trappist breweries to signify a strong ale."

And just so's ya know...I am a homebrewer, I just know the BJCP guidelines are ONLY supposed to be used for american homebrewing competitions, not for classifying actual beers "in the wild". The BJCP themselves will tell you the same thing if you ask them.Beakerboy (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Beakerboy, I'll answer second: The burden is on you to show it is not a tripel. Beeradvocate is not a reliable source, it is a fan site. And why are you asking for a reliable source when the sources are listed at the bottom of the article? Mikebe (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever... you win, I give up, I'll leave your page alone. I also am a homebrewer and an active beer connoisseur. I'll just drink my tripels and drink my dark belgian strong ales and and try to convince myself they are the same. I don't know what kind of authorities you think you are but the thousands of beer lovers all over the internet agree with me. I also have no idea what you mean by "in the wild." But if you say a westv12 is a tripel, what about -chimay blue, rochefort 10, la trappe quadrupel- are those tripels? Also I guess it is just a coincidence that all beers that call themselves tripels have similar tastes, or style. It must be a coincidence because "the term tripel has since been adopted by non-Trappist breweries to signify a strong ale." Logic is a very important concept to understand, and logic disappeared when this was said, "The burden is on you to show it is not a tripel." Yeah, Ill just go ahead and find you a source that says a cat isn't a dog while I'm at it. This whole situation is just like that, It's like you trying to convince me that a cat is a dog and you tell me to find proof that a cat isn't a dog. Kxmjb (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to get all excited about it...relax and have a homebrew. Historically the term Tripel was created to designate the third strongest beer in a series offered by an abbey. The fact that US brewers latched onto the pale and flowery Westmalle version of a Tripel and made that the standard by which all others are developed is mearly a coincidence. I think Mikebe will agree that Rochefort 10 is their Tripel...although they do not call it such. La Trappe has four main beers...not so surprising that they call the fourth one Quadrupel. It's the only Trappist beer to call itself such. If you find a good beer history book which agrees with your point of view, add it to the references list. Using ratebeer and beeradvocate (where I have an account) for information would be like using Netflix as a guide on movies. There are MUCH better sources in libraries and not online.Beakerboy (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting is that Belgian brewers have also latched onto the Westmalle concept of what a tripel is. There have been over 350 Belgian beers made available commercially in the US, and not one that called itself a tripel was a color any darker than what one might call 'gold'. Nor in my extensive travels of Belgium have I ever come across a beer that labeled itself as a tripel that did not fit this same construct. Whether that's historically accurate or not seems moot, as the Belgian brewing community has decided the issue.Deeplennon (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that a reliable source has called Westvleteren 12 a Tripel, but it would be unusual to do that. The brewery do not term it a Tripel, and I don't recall any notable writers (or even fan sites) referring to it as a Tripel. There are better known and less contentious examples of Tripel that could be used. I would think that Westvleteren 12 is an inappropriate choice, and if it is to be brought into the article it would need a good reference source. SilkTork *^YES! 00:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Excess number of examples.

So....How should we pair back the example list so it isn't longer than the article itself? Alternatively we could continue the way this most recent round of edits went. I could grab a copy of the entire ratebeer or beer advocate list of tripels and past it in the article! That would be great! Beakerboy (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to the original 10 examples, which was plenty.Patto1ro (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the trolls are back edit warring on the examples, I am removing all of them as the most notable example of a tripel is already in the article. This was discussed previously (I think on the beer project page) and this approach was recommended by several editors. Mikebe (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please link to that other consensus since it does not exist here here. 1Z (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said....1Z (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, i've found myself (on the Barley Wine page) it and it is for list as currently exists: (1Z (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

No. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer%23Examples Mikebe (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a concensus in favour of working examples into the text (which I agree with) , not in terms of snipping them and making no further changes. 1Z (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of the consensus was to mention a notable example (or examples if more than one) of a beer. It was not to transfer the list from under the article into the article. Mikebe (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on lists within articles as they don't tell us much. Lists within articles are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. I would say the approach is to write about a beer and in the text to include notable examples, with an explanation of why that example is notable (first of it's type, biggest seller, most extreme example, one most written about, etc) - and that lists of examples should be diminished as pointless. SilkTork *YES! 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the best way to proceed going forward. If a list is present it is easy to add to it. If, instead, there is a paragraph featuring notable current and historical examples of a particular beer "style" it would probably manage itself.Beakerboy (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that when the list is longer than the rest of the article, there's a problem. Either the history and characteristics should be expanded, of the list should be culled. I personally like the consensus that was reached in the Tripel article between Mikebe and others...myself included. We decided that the country of origin should be highlighted with the most examples. There we did Trappist, Abbey, and Foreign. Foreign includes all non-Belgium examples. This way the article is an article in an encyclopedia, not a list. People can find lists anywhere, and the article should reference this. Also, the style statistics are bad. When you say style statistics, it sounds like a prescription, not a description. An encyclopedia should follow the latter, and if the former is used, a citation should follow...And you'll not find a valid one for this style in it's country of origin.Beakerboy (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since two of my quotes are being used in this discussion, I'll chime in here. My thinking is most in line with 1Z. If a specific brand of beer is noteworthy enough to be called out as an important representative of a particular "style", a sentence or two should be written within the article about that particular beer. In effect, working the notable examples into the body of the article. I've been pretty hands off on these articles for a while, and I'll continue to be for the foreseeable future.Beakerboy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists are to be discouraged. It is preferred for examples to be discussed within the text, and such comments to be supported by references to reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Holy Trinity

RE: Considering the importance of the Holy Trinity in the church, it is unlikely that the choice of three types of beers was accidental.

Even if this statement is from the listed source, which isn't clear, it is opinion only. It also is weakened by the fact that the terminology 'dubbel' has reportedly been in use since the 19th century while 'Tripel' has only been in use since 1956.

Also, beyond broad POV issues, this article does not read as if it were written by a native English speaker and contains unpreferred syntax throughout (much like the general Belgian Beer article). It seems rather unfortunate that a select few (one person?) seem intent on keeping both articles this way.Deeplennon (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with it either. SilkTork *^YES! 00:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brother Thomas

The name needs to be explained. 1Z (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

He was the head brewer. I've put in a reference source. SilkTork *^YES! 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

user:patto1ro has reverted the change along with others. I have reverted back, as this clearly need sproper disussion and consensus. 1Z (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When Silktork completely rewrote this article, where did he discuss this or seek consensus? I don't see it. The fact that you User:Peterdjones see nothing wrong with this article is further proof that, as I have said in the past: 1. you have little knowledge of Belgian beer and 2. you don't know what WP:RS means or is. Mikebe (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of requested rewrite by Patto1ro and mikebe

User:SilkTork's rewrite has retroactive support as you can see from this page. Can you explain why you did not specify the alleged inaccuries on this page, as I requested in my edit summary? 1Z (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Show me where Silktork discussed any need for a rewrite of this article. Mikebe (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Under "The Holy Trinity",a bove. The rewrite is supportd by a third party under "Article rewrite" below 1Z (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the supposd inaccuracies. 1Z (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean "I'm not comfortable with it either" reads to you like "this entire article is inaccurate and it needs a total rewrite"? Is that where Silktork you think gave valid reasons for a rewrite? Secondly, I don't need to explain any inaccuracies, Silktork does because he is the one who did the rewrite. And, I will repeat: if you think his version of the article is a. accurate and b. well-supported by WP:RS, then I repeat exactly what I wrote about you above and in other places. Mikebe (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The validity of the rewrite comes from the fact that it is supported by a number of editors. All edits other than reversions of vandalism need to be explained, so that includes your reversion of the rewrites. So I will ask you a fourth time to say what you think is inaccurate. I will note in passign that the reverted article containst claims that a number of editors have objected to already. 1Z (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't discuss this in good faith (eg, "a number of editors"), then there is no point. I will ask you a third and last time where Silktork a. discussed doing a rewrite and b. where he proved that the original article was inaccurate. Citing American sources for an article on Belgian beer over Belgian sources is not proof. Mikebe (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothign bad faith about the phrase "a number of editors".

Silk Tork does not have to prove innacuracy. If editors object to claims, and the claims cannot be supported, they must be removed. If you can find WP:RS for the claim about the Holy Trinity, please do so at you earliest convenience. Otherwise it should be removed. (But then why repeat the whole rewrite process when we can simply go back to SilkTork's version?). 1Z (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

* When change(s) to an article are challenged, the editor who makes the change is expected to justify those change(s), through references and discussion. There is no inherent right on Wikipedia to edit an article to a particular user's POV or liking. Changes consisting only of original research or of appeals to sources which are not reliable need only be contested to affect their reversion; the burden of proof is on the editor who proposes a change.

* Editors who cannot advance their proposed change(s) through normal discussion and dispute resolution are subject to blocking if they attempt, after being warned by a neutral administrator or other party, to push through changes via tendentious or disruptive editing practices. * Such actions may lead to more serious corrective action through the dispute resolution process, including being banned from Wikipedia. A user need not violate WP:3RR to be blocked under this policy. * Until a conflict is resolved, an article (or the contested parts thereof) should remain in its prior state as to the contested point; the burden of proof is upon those who make significant changes to statements of the positions. However, challengers to edits are also expected to support their positions and may also be blocked or banned if they tendentiously defend an article's original content in the face of stronger evidence in support of a change.

This policy shall not to be construed as an invitation to gratuitously challenge every unreferenced change, nor to doubt the integrity of every reference provided. Users should always remember to assume good faith when there is doubt; to not set themselves up as a devil's advocate, and to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Changes to articles which are not contested after a reasonable time (1 day?) shall be considered to have been accepted; however they may still be reverted if stronger evidence to the contrary is provided at a later date.

1Z (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Peter. I'll just add you to the admin report I file. Mikebe (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh, I'm sooo scaaaaared. 1Z (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikebe's comlaints about this article

I rewrote an article about tripel beer from Belgium using two books by Belgian authors (Jef van den Steen is a retired teacher who has spent over 30 years researching Belgian beer and Geert van Lierde is a well-known journalist who has written several popular books about beer. van den Steen's books include a lengthy bibliography.) I was therefore quite surprised to find that User:SilkTork (and Wikipedia adminstrator) had completely rewritten the article [1]. Since we have corresponded by email in the past, I asked why he had changed it. He wrote me: "The new version of the Tripel article is built on reliable sources. The old one contained mistakes, was inaccurate, and had few reliable sources." When I replied asking what the errors were, I got no answer.

Now, let's look at his reliable sources: a wine shop in San Francisco (http://www.plumpjackwines.com/plumpjackwines/), an American beer import company (http://www.belgianexperts.com/), several amateur brewing sources and a couple of British beer writers, including Michael Jackson. However, I discovered that what Michael Jackson (a usually reliable source) had actually written ("I believe the first golden Triple was produced by the Three Lindens brewery, at Brasschaat, near Antwerp, in the post-war period, when brewers of strong, top-fermenting beers were trying to compete with Pilsener-style lagers." [2]) was different from what was written in the article ("The first golden strong pale ale which is associated with the term, was brewed by Hendrik Verlinden of the Drie Linden (Three Lindens) brewery in the early 1930s, when ale brewers were looking to compete with the pale lagers from Plzeň." I posted a third-opinion request [3] and several days later, to my shock, I read this: "I don't really see why a third opinion is needed here: there is no discussion, and there are three active editors here (so really an RfC or something else is better). Having said that, here's my take. SikTork's edits are very well done, and are a huge improvement over the previous version of the article." [4]

Does this mean a wine shop in San Francisco, amateur brewing groups and beer importers (all American, btw) are more reliable about the history of a Belgian beer than a Belgian scholar and journalist?

The new version of the article is complete fiction - there is hardly a single accurate statement in it. According to several Belgian books, for example, the beer produced by the Three Linden (Drie Linden) brewery was a dark beer, not golden/pale, and furthermore it is very doubtful it was a tripel. Secondly, the first sentence of the new article reads (in part): "Tripel (also Trippel) is a term used by brewers mainly in Belgium and the USA to describe..." In my country (the Netherlands), there are far more breweries (relatively speaking) producing a tripel (almost half the breweries in the country) than in the USA and Danish breweries also produce quite a few, yet neither country is mentioned. Also, tripel's are not all pale. For example, Het Kapittel Watou Prior and Achel 8 Bruin are both dark and tripels.

If Wikipedia is the place to publish fiction, nothing need be done. Otherwise the article needs to be reverted. But, be careful! User:Peterdjones, who I filed an admin notice about here [5] will tell you the article is accurate and, besides, accuracy is not necessary because "it's supported by consensus" (hint: it isn't, but even if it did, wouldn't WP:RS be more important?).

OK. What we are going to do here is Proper Editing. Now that you have finally detailed you objections, we can go through them one by one, rathet than reverting. There are of course objections to be made the article you want to revert to as well. 1Z (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim the articel was 100% accurate. I claimed that this revision was better than the one you are reverting to. Specific issues can be addressed by editing this article; hyperbole about 'complete fiction' should be ignored. 1Z (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please give WP:RS for Drie Linden Tripel being Dark.

Please give for WP:RS Het Kapittel Watou Prior and Achel 8 Bruin being Tripels.

It is not Proper Editing to simply state that something is false.1Z (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the older version that mikebe wants to revert to

General problems.

The old article is shorter and less detailed.

There are 3 refrences (as opposed to 12 in the old article, two of them not in English).

Specific problems

".. naming convention used by Belgian Trappist breweries to describe the strongest beer in their range."

Wrong. There are brewers who produce a tripel and an even stronger beer, as noted in the new article.

"The name is also used by a number of brewers around the world for commercial purposes".

The word "commercial" is borderline weaseling. Trappist beer is not given away free.

"It [westmalle] is today considered the first beer to use that name. [1][2]"

Should read "first golden beer"

"So, the trappist beers were divided into three: enkel, dubbel and tripel (basic, double and triple)."

Several problems. The nomenclature is not used by all the trappist breweries, it is not used only by Trappist breweries, and it predates the current official Trappist designation. 1Z (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Considering the importance of the Holy Trinity in the church, it is unlikely that the choice of three types of beers was accidental.[3]"

This has been disputed.

"It is likely that one of the reasons the tripel was born was the Vandevelde Act of 1919. This Belgian law, which was not repealed until 1983, forbade the sale or service of strong drink, particularly, Jenever. As neither beer nor wine were affected by this law, it was a commercially opportune time to introduce stronger beers.[citation needed]"

A citation is indeed needed.

1Z (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Belgian tripel beer article

Which would be considered more reliable sources for an article on the history of this beer:

1. a wine shop in San Francisco (http://www.plumpjackwines.com/plumpjackwines/)

2. an American beer import company (http://www.belgianexperts.com/)

3. several (American) amateur brewing sources

4. a couple of British beer writers (one of whom is misquoted in the article)

or

1. Jef van den Steen, Trappist - Het Bier en de Monniken ISBN 90-5826-214-6

2. Geert van Lierde et al., In het Spoor van de Trappisten ISBN 90-261-0704-8

Mikebe (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Impossible for us to judge without knowing the comparative reputations of the authors (something better determined by consensus at the article talk page). Without knowing this, I would hazzard a guess (and it is a guess) that van den Steen, van Lierde and the British writers are equally highly reliable, the amature American might be, and the retailers may not be. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The two Belgian writers' books are not in English, so I can only tell you that van den Steen is a retired school teacher who has spent the past 30 years researching Belgian beer. His books have a bibliography of Dutch and French documents. Geert van Lierde is a journalist and currently chairman of the association of Belgian beer journalists (http://www.agjpb.be/vvj/vereniging_verwant.php?subcategorie=bierjournalisten). He has written several books on Belgian beer. Michael Jackson, the late British writer, is reliable, however, in the article in question, he is misquoted. The other British writer, Roger Protz, does not have a reliable reputation for British beers. Most of the material taken from the amature American brewing sources conflicts with information in the Belgian sources. I hope this answers your questions. Mikebe (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

context: mikebe is objecting to this [66] version of the article. The version he wants to revert to [67] is a much shorter article with 4 references, 3 of them in Dutch/Flemish.

Note that Michael Jackson (beer writer) is used more than once as a source. Mike wants to revert the entire article despite only challenging one use of an RS from Jackson. Note that despite the way mikebe has worded his compalints, onyl a nminority of the references in the article come from retailers. Note that he has described multiple RS's from 3 top autorities -- Roger Protz, Tiw Webb and Jackson -- as "a couple of British writers". Roger Protz is a senior CAMRA officer who has wrriten on world beers. Tim Webb has written the most comprehensive guide to Belgian beer in the English language[68]. Jackson was probably the most renowned authority on world beers full stop.

Having taken a look at the talk page... this seems to be a dispute between two editors who prefer different versions of the article (each exhibiting a strong degree of Ownership). I suggest that both sides in this dispute look for compromise language, discussing what all the different sources say on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

best.I am willing to compromise. Mike won't say. Could you give a verdict on Protz, Jackson and Webb as sources? TIA.

1Z (talk)

They seem eminently reliable to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article rewrite

This article, as rewritten by SilkTork, contains unreliable sources and is factually inaccurate. The previous version used two reliable sources (two books written by Belgian authors) and I see no reason to replace it. Mikebe (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact very well referenced for a short article. 1Z (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: I don't really see why a third opinion is needed here: there is no discussion, and there are three active editors here (so really an RfC or something else is better). Having said that, here's my take. SikTork's edits are very well done, and are a huge improvement over the previous version of the article. As a side note, SilkTork is an admin and is involved with improving the beer articles on Wikipedia, and their improvements to this article speak to that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I came here because I saw the issue raised on the admin noticeboard. I'm a beer hobbyist, but certainly not an expert in tripels. But, I'll try to help if I can.) My suggestion right now is this: instead of trying to decide between version A or version B, why doesn't everyone make small changes if they see where an improvement can be made? It's generally easier to get a small change through than a complete rewrite. Friday (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am an expert on tripels. I am Dutch and a member of the Belgian beer consumers union (zythos.be). This version of the article does not contain a single word that is correct. The only solution is version A. Peterdjones has demonstrated here and elsewhere a similar approach to Belgian beer articles: use American/English sources because he can read them. Mikebe (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in favour of making piecemeal changes to the current article. Despite Mike's claim that not a single word is accurate, the article is generaly well-referenced and only small changes would be required to deal with the outstanding issues. Self-protestations of personal expertise unfortuanetly do not count on wikipedia,. so mikebe needs to start finding references (english-language ones preferably) if he wants more extensive changes to be made.1Z (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I've had enough of your comments. You have never demonstrated any knowledge of Belgian beer unless it came from an English-language source, most of which violate WP:RS, as does the current version in any way you can describe it. The old version will stay, unless you will revert to your normal habit of edit-warring and if I can verify something in the new version, I will add it. This is not an article about a major event or a major product so having many sources for a short article is not necessary. To call this article "well referenced" is laughable. You really need to read WP:RS sometime, it might help your editing. Mikebe (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The new article contained 13 refernces, nost of them from notable authorities. Your complaint about it tried to emphasis the small number from home brewing sources, etc. The WP:RS on the article was fine , and was OK by all the third party visitors. It is nonsense to suggest that according to WP:RS you cannot use enlish language sources! 1Z (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made the concilitory and co-operative suggestion to addrss your specific concerns by editing the new article. You are not displaying a co-operative attitude and have been criticised for that by several editors including and Admin. If this behaviour pesists, it can only result on your being blocked. It is not in your interests to continue behaving like this, please desist. 1Z (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to address mikebe's concerns ([6]) but to no avail. He reverted without discussion ([7]) 1Z (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Silktork's version vs previous version

I'm going to stick my nose in here, although it has gotten me into trouble in the past, and it's not necessarily the best time for me to do so because I'll be leaving town for a few days and won't be around to engage in much dialog, and even when I'm around I'm horribly busy with my real life. That said, I think Silktork's rewrite of the article was well done and definitely done as a good faith effort to improve the article, but I do have some concerns that the references that are provided don't necessarily correspond very well with the statements to which they are attached. As a basic example the first sentence, "Tripel (also Trippel) is a term used by brewers mainly in Belgium and the USA to describe a strong pale ale, loosely in the style of Westmalle Tripel." is attributed to Michael Jackson's Beer Hunter website, which simply states "Dutch-language term usually applied to the strongest beer of the house, customarily top-fermenting often pale in colour, occasionally spiced with coriander. The most famous is made in Westmalle, Belgium". The reference doesn't say that all tripels are pale in color, it says often pale in color. It also does not say that all tripels are loosely in the style of Westmalle Tripel, it says that the most famous is Westmalle Tripel. I haven't gone through all of them yet, but I'm starting to see similar issues with the second Michael Jackson Beer Hunter website.

I'd like to propose that we agree on the basic premise that everybody involved in this content dispute has the ultimate goal of improving the article and that wholesale reversion of other editors' work does not bring anybody closer to that goal. In fact, it has the opposite effect, and generates hostility between the small subset of Wikipedia editors who have an interest and at least some fundamental familiarity with the subject matter, and reduces the liklihood of collaborative editing.

My opinion is that the best approach is to recognize that the rewrite is opposed by at least two of the four active editors on this article and propose that we identify common ground and integrate them piecemeal into the article as it exists. I'll start the ball rolling and try to make small changes one at a time so that individual edits can be discussed and modified rather than discarding all of my changes at once because someone disputes a minor fact included in a diff. Neil916 (Talk) 21:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have said I am in favour of detailed consideration of the article. However, it will have to be first -re=reverted to SilkTork's version.

I don't really understand you comments about the gold/dark issue. Mikebe is objecting to the claim that there were at one time dark Tripels, which is RS'd by MJ as well. I am happy to allow that there are dissenting voices on the issue, anyway.

I am now even less clear on the topic. I have no idea where you or mikebe stand. But it is a generally unclear issue and careful research and sourcing is required. I have no WP:POV myself. 1Z (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also unclear about the fourth active editor. user:SilkTork, myself, and user:mikebe have recently been active. user:patto1ro made the original reversion away from SilkTork's version but has not returned. 1Z (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to patto1ro as the fourth editor, since he is definitely active in beer style articles and clearly objected to the rewrite, although I strongly disagree with the drive-by revert as a productive method of expressing that. I also think that the convention on Wikipedia is that when a particular rewrite is disputed as it obviously is in this case, then the status quo reigns until there is consensus to make that change (I refer to the "When to revert" section on the Wikipedia:Reverting essay page), so I don't know if reverting to Silktork's version and going from there is the best course of action and I feel that spending a whole bunch of time debating which version to start with isn't the best use of time. My opinion is that we should start from the established article and improve and reword it as necessary using the new information identified by Silktork if everybody can agree on it. Re gold/dark issue. I'm not Mikebe, so I don't know what he was claiming, but my statement above was in reference to the fact that Silktork's version attributed a statement that "Tripels are strong pale ales, loosely in the style of Westmalle Tripel" to the Beerhunter website, but that website doesn't quite say that, it says that they are "often pale in colour" and that the best known example is Westmalle Tripel. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Neil916 (Talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But, alas, after I wrote that, I saw you reverted it anyway. Neil916 (Talk) 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a revert, it is a rewrite including the two substantiable points mikebe has raised.

The SilkTork article is established since several editors have given it their approval already. That process has already commenced.

I do not think you have clarified the pale/dark issue. The ST article does not state that they are always rather than often pale and in fact gives a specific ref. for dark tripels.

One a more general note, objections to changes are usual, and are usually objections to specific changes. However mikebe, and even less, patto1ro have done little to specify the problems (well, precisely nothing as far as the latter is concerned). Changes are often objected to because they are made in advance of referencing but that was not the case here, SilkTork being a highly experienced editor. 1Z (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikebe is just edit-warring now so this will have to go to arbitration. 1Z (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not a revert" Really? Mikebe (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really. Look at the diff.([8]). And assume good faith 1Z (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then who did this? [[9]] Mikebe (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

co-operative editing

Are you going to start editing co-operatively?1Z (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question ("Then who did this?")? And, I must say, you have a lot of nerve talking about co-operative editing when you have done absolutely nothing but edit-war at every chance you have! Like this article, for example. Mikebe (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Call it a revert if it'll make you happy. I was demonstratign that your objecitons can be accommodated within ST's article with only minor changes. That was a co-operative move. One of many. Now answer my question: Are you going to edit co-operatively? Is it worht makign incremental changes, as several editors have recommended, or are you going to continue making undiscussed reversions? 1Z (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I asked "Who did this" not "what is it". Why won't you answer that? As to your question, several editors have pointed out that ST misquoted his sources and that his sources don't meet WP:RS. The article as it stands now (and I've made some clarifications) is full. I don't see anything in ST version that belongs in the article. I don't understand this "co-operative editing". Does this mean the article shouldn't be accurate? Does this mean mis-quoting from RS should be included? And I don't think you are in at all good position to bring up "undiscussed reversions". People who live in glass houses and all that. Mikebe (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Call it a revert if it'll make you happy"

Co-operative editing is somehting incumbent on all editors at all times, so it is odd you should not understand it. What it means is that you should discuess changes, and obtain consensus. The numebr of editors supporting ST's article is much greater than the number who have made negative comments. The problems could be addressed by amending the ST article, but you are totally unco-operative on this point. You simply do not listen to argumetns to that effect. For instance, you coninued to revert after this comment:

"Third opinion: I don't really see why a third opinion is needed here: there is no discussion, and there are three active editors here (so really an RfC or something else is better). Having said that, here's my take. SikTork's edits are very well done, and are a huge improvement over the previous version of the article. As a side note, SilkTork is an admin and is involved with improving the beer articles on Wikipedia, and their improvements to this article speak to that"

You keep falling back on your claim that the article is somehow entirely wrong, but do nto back it up. The few specific issues you have mentioned require only minor changes as my rewrite exercise shows. Your claims about the acceptability of MJ as RS are a personaly WP:POV which nothing to do with normal WP guidelines. You have not backend up those of your claims which require RS. Each individual issue needs to be addressed individually.

Are you going to edit in a normal way according to the WP guidleines from now on?

1Z (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1Z (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you answer my last question? Repeating your statement is no response. What you wrote above is simply not factual, much like the articles you have edited. If there is a fact in ST article that is missing, tell me what it is and I'll check it. Otherwise, let's just move on. Mikebe (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Move on where? 1Z (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First, this is a rewrite (19 or so edits consolidated into one diff). this, this, this, this, this, this, and this are reverts, as I, and as I understand it, a majority of the Wikipedia community, uses the term (according to the first sentence of the Wikipedia:Reverting essay). I point this out to illustrate how I personally use the term "revert", but I would like to emphasize that I hope the discussion of this particular point dies here because I'm really not interested in debating what is or what is not a "revert". It's totally beside the point. Second, I'm confused as to how I have not clarified my problem with the ST article's use of the Beerhunter citation. I'll try to illustrate with a dramatically exaggerated example. I, as a globally recognized expert on the subject, publish in a respected academic journal, the following statement: "The sky is blue, except at sunset in particularly smoggy conditions, it is a very attractive shade of orange". You, upon reading this journal, edit the first sentence of the sky article on Wikipedia to read, "according to respected expert Neil916, the sky is orange." and footnote it with a link to the respected academic journal. That is not what I said. You are free to find another reliable source who published a claim that the sky is orange, but don't try to put words in my mouth. The MJ Beerhunters website does not say what the ST version of the article is attributing to that website, at least according to the current version that I can see. I'm not trying to argue that tripels aren't all pale, I'm simply stating that you can't footnote it with a link to the beerhunter website and call that a reliable source to a disputed fact when it clearly isn't what the site is saying. I certainly hope I have expressed this clearly enough despite the fact that it's 2am here at the end of an especially stressful day. As to your last point, I think there is plenty of blame and bad behavior to point out, and hope that we don't get mired in a debate about who is acting more inappropriately here and instead focus on the goal of an article that we can all agree best represents a global view of the subject matter. And with that, I depart, off to go camping at the top of high mountains at extreme altitudes for days on end. Can you say "decompression"? Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think reference [1] is supposed to justify the clause about being based on Westmalle. That Tripels are at least usally golden is bordering on common knwoledge and very easy to source. 1Z (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Which would be considered more reliable sources for an article on the history of this beer:

1. a wine shop in San Francisco (http://www.plumpjackwines.com/plumpjackwines/)

2. an American beer import company (http://www.belgianexperts.com/)

3. several (American) amateur brewing sources

4. a couple of British beer writers (one of whom is misquoted in the article)

or

1. Jef van den Steen, Trappist - Het Bier en de Monniken ISBN 90-5826-214-6

2. Geert van Lierde et al., In het Spoor van de Trappisten ISBN 90-261-0704-8

Mikebe (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Impossible for us to judge without knowing the comparative reputations of the authors (something better determined by consensus at the article talk page). Without knowing this, I would hazzard a guess (and it is a guess) that van den Steen, van Lierde and the British writers are equally highly reliable, the amature American might be, and the retailers may not be. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The two Belgian writers' books are not in English, so I can only tell you that van den Steen is a retired school teacher who has spent the past 30 years researching Belgian beer. His books have a bibliography of Dutch and French documents. Geert van Lierde is a journalist and currently chairman of the association of Belgian beer journalists (http://www.agjpb.be/vvj/vereniging_verwant.php?subcategorie=bierjournalisten). He has written several books on Belgian beer. Michael Jackson, the late British writer, is reliable, however, in the article in question, he is misquoted. The other British writer, Roger Protz, does not have a reliable reputation for British beers. Most of the material taken from the amature American brewing sources conflicts with information in the Belgian sources. I hope this answers your questions. Mikebe (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

context: mikebe is objecting to this [66] version of the article. The version he wants to revert to [67] is a much shorter article with 4 references, 3 of them in Dutch/Flemish.

Note that Michael Jackson (beer writer) is used more than once as a source. Mike wants to revert the entire article despite only challenging one use of an RS from Jackson. Note that despite the way mikebe has worded his compalints, onyl a nminority of the references in the article come from retailers. Note that he has described multiple RS's from 3 top autorities -- Roger Protz, Tiw Webb and Jackson -- as "a couple of British writers". Roger Protz is a senior CAMRA officer who has wrriten on world beers. Tim Webb has written the most comprehensive guide to Belgian beer in the English language[68]. Jackson was probably the most renowned authority on world beers full stop.

Having taken a look at the talk page... this seems to be a dispute between two editors who prefer different versions of the article (each exhibiting a strong degree of Ownership). I suggest that both sides in this dispute look for compromise language, discussing what all the different sources say on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise. Mike won't say. Could you give a verdict on Protz, Jackson and Webb as sources? TIA.

1Z (talk)

They seem eminently reliable to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Hi everyone, I'm going to be the informal mediator for this article. After a brief look at the dispute, there seems to be two different versions, and a revert war between them. My initial suggested approach is to look at the additional content in the longer version, on a sentence by sentence by sentence approach. This would examine sources, as well as other criteria for inclusion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That's fine with me and I am glad that you are doing it sentence by sentence, because that is how I have also done it. I would very much like to express sentence by sentence the problems with the longer version. Mikebe (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to do that as well. After all, I have asked you to several times. 1Z (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

First sentence (with disputed portion underlined)

• "Tripel (also Trippel) is a term used by brewers mainly in the Low Countries, some other European countries, and the USA to describe a strong pale ale, loosely in the style of Westmalle Tripel."
• Sourced to http://www.beerhunter.com/styles/tripel.html
• The first underlined portion has been recently modified, and perhaps is now less contentious. However, additional sourcing could possibly be deemed necessary.
• The second underlined portion isn't exactly contained in the source, which says "often pale in colour", so perhaps this could be rephrased slightly.
• The final underlined portion again isn't exactly contained in the source, so additional sourcing could possibly be deemed necessary.

PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An explanation

Thanks for looking into this Phil. This article was (and again now is) in a poor state of unsupported opinion, and simply wrong headed material. I did some research and rewrote the article. The article is a summary of my research. Going through it sentence by sentence is helpful on one level - though I would ask that people read the whole article and every reference source listed first to get the over view. The opening sentence is a summary of what most of the sources say. Also, it is worth clicking on the Wiki interlinks to get a greater understanding of some of the terms used. "Strong pale ale" is a term used loosely to describe beers which mainly use pale malt - but many pale ales also use crystal malt which gives the beer a dark appearance. So the term is not used to describe the colour of the beer, but of the malt mainly used in the brewing. Other such terms are wheat beer, which is a beer partially but not entirely made with wheat. It is unfortunate that "pale in colour" is in the wording in the source used in that first sentence. When this storm has blown over, please let me know and I'll come back and fine tune the article and sources. I don't wish to get into a squabble with Mikebe though, the effort required to debate with him is simply too much. If the community decides to have a RFC on Mikebe, please let me know. I have been considering it myself as people keep asking me to sort out disputes involving him. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

mike has driven a succession of editors of the beer pages. Some kind of action is long overdue. 1Z (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — goethean ॐ 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mkebe hasbeen very disruptive with the beer articles.Bjcpbjcpbjcp (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On that particular issue it would probably be best to limit discussion in this particular venue. This is after all the talk page for Tripel, where any and all interested parties should be working together to reach a consensus over how best to improve the article.

Note, however, that Wikipedia allows you to set a 'watch' on a page that doesn't exist, such as "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/USERNAME" (for some value of USERNAME) so that if/when it is created it will immediately show up on your watchlist. If you believe such a page is likely to be created there is nothing to prevent you from having some notes prepared ahead of time. --mwalimu59 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why disucssion of user:mikebe should be limited to this page when he has been doing the same thing on other pages, such as beer style and quadrupel. 1Z (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He said that it should be limited on this page, not to this page. — goethean ॐ 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for helping clarify. --mwalimu59 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sources I used are not online - so those I can quickly lay my hands on, I'll write out here for people:

• Heavenly Beer, Roger Protz, Carroll &Brown, 2002, page 125 - "Tripel - Strong, usually pale beer, associated with the Westmalle Trappist brewery in Belgium, but now widely used throughout the Low Countries."

• The Great Beers of Belgium, Michael Jackson, MMC, 1997, page 226 - (There are five pages on Westmalle - I'll try to pick out the important bits) - "...this monastery is famous for its golden Tripel. This is made exclusively with pale, pilsner-style malt, but is a strong, fruity, top-fermented ale in the Trappist tradition... and the style has been widely imitated by conventional commercial brewers."

• Belgian Ale, Pierre Rajotte, Brewers publications, 1992, pages 31-34 - "The style originated at the Trappist abbey of Westmalle. It is pale in color, usually made with only pale, Pils-type malt... Although the first example of this style was of Trappist origin (the Westmalle Trippel), the name soon began to be used by others brewers of abbey beer. But it was always applied to a beer that was a close replica of the Westmalle product. Nowadays the name TYripple or Trippel is quite often applied to a beer that has no monastic connections, but is simply in the style originated by the monks of Westmalle. Tripels are always similar to each other. visualy they are just a shade darker than a Pils.... Trippel (Tripel): A straw color, high gravity brew from 7 to 10 percent alcohol v/v."

I think that's enough to cover that a Tripel is generally seen as a strong pale ale in the style of Westmalle Tripel. I would like to return to this article at some point to write up the ingredients and brewing methods, and significant brands. Clearly I cannot edit an article which is being reverted, and I don't "watch" articles. Hopefully somebody will inform me when this unpleasantness is over. SilkTork *^YES! 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And I agree that the lead sentence should include the Netherlands, as brewers there use the term a lot. I'm not sure that the term Low Countries should be used. It's an historic term, so is acceptable when talking about the period when Tripel was first developed, but when talking about these days it may be more appropriate to say Belgium and the Netherlands. SilkTork *^YES! 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this issue is somewhere between minor and non-existent. 1Z (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week and a half since we had an informal mediator volunteer to oversee the discussion, and except for one comment moments after that was announced here, we haven't heard a peep out of the person who requested mediation. Meanwhile, the version of the article most of us are in favor of is stuck in a holding pattern. What can we do to move ahead with this? --mwalimu59 (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert to the consensus version? — goethean ॐ 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree Beakerboy (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tripel conjecture

There is absolutely no mystery of why the word "tripel" was ultimately chosen for the Westmalle beer. Single, double - what would come next? Both singles and doubles (or Enkel and Dubbel) had already been produced by monasteries in Belgium. In the 20th century, when a new, stronger (than a double) beer was produced, why would they not continue the simple trend that had been used until then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.54.33 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that the same logic does not apply to Quadruple, which in the US, frequently IS used to describe a beer, stronger than a Triple.

Beakerboy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SilkTork's last version

Extended content

Westmalle Tripel Tripel (also Trippel) is a term used by brewers mainly in Belgium and the USA to describe a strong pale ale, loosely in the style of Westmalle Tripel. The origin of the term is unknown, though the two main theories are that it indicates strength in some way. It was used in 1956 by the Trappist brewery, Westmalle to rename the strongest beer in their range, their Superbier, and the popularity of that brand ensured the name is still strongly associated with the Westmalle brewery, though both the term Tripel and the style of beer associated with the name (strong pale ale), were in existence before 1956. The style of Westmalle's Tripel and the name was widely copied by the Abbey breweries of Belgium, and in 1987 another Trappist brewery, the Koningshoeven in the Netherlands, expanded their range with a beer called La Trappe Tripel, though they also produced a stronger beer they termed La Trappe Quadrupel. The term spread to the USA, and is applied by a range of secular brewers to a strong pale ale in the style of Westmalle Tripel. History The term Tripel comes from the Low Countries - that is the modern Netherlands and Belgium; though the origin of the term is unknown. The two main theories are that it indicates strength, either by a series of marks, such as crosses, on a cask - X for the weakest strength, XX for medium strength, and XXX for the strongest beer, or by reference to the original gravity of a beer which roughly corresponds to 3% abv, 6% abv and 9% abv. The first golden strong pale ale which is associated with the term, was brewed by Hendrik Verlinden of the Drie Linden (Three Lindens) brewery in the early 1930s, when ale brewers were looking to compete with the pale lagers from Plzeň. Verlinden had an association with the Trappist brewery, Westmalle, assisting them with brewing, and becoming the only secular brewer allowed to carry the Trappist Beer designation. The year after Verlinden produced a golden strong pale ale for his own brewery in 1932, the Witkap Pater (now known as Witkap Tripel, produced by the Slaghmuylder Brewery), Westmalle released their Tripel under the name Superbier. It was a strong blonde ale and was very likely based on a blonde beer the monks had been brewing sporadically since 1931. In 1956, the recipe was modified by Brother Thomas, the head brewer of Westmalle, by the addition of more hops, and it then took on the name Tripel, it has remained essentially unchanged since. See also Beer in Belgium Beer in the United States References External links Westmalle Tripel

Would a compromise wording along the lines of replacing "to describe a strong pale ale" with "to describe an ale made with pale, pilsner type malt" be possible? PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)