User talk:SilkTork/Beer Archive/Gluten Free Beer

Your edit to Steve Ford

Your recent edit to Steve Ford was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gluten free beer

I understand you may have removed some links. Can you explain which ones and why? Did you change the iten in beer? perhaps you might want to read the item in the discussion on beer if so?

Later addition: It seems so. Should I delete all material on beer and brewing and all such material that is not related to what one in a hundred people can consume without risking becomming very ill, even dying? Should I decide that such material is not relevent to us. You can drink gluten free beer, I cannot drink anything but. Perhaps you might wish to consider other's interests before deleting so casually?

REPLY to comment

I am quite happy to work the material, but to suggest that the only beer one in a hundred people can have is not as important as references to some of the other "related beverages" etc is very insulting. You clearly have no idea what it has been like for beer drinkers to go years, even decades without drinking beer. The social isolation from many experiences you take for granted is SIGNIFICANT. As you say, your opinion is no more important than mine - and I note that there are links to many websites on the page - why are these not deleted ? Why not delete them all ? To delete without discussion is very annoying, and clearly shows you dismiss this very important and growing type as spurious. Try telling coeliacs face to face that, I can invite you to an occassion where you can argue the point. However, I suggest that it is more sensible to discuss the material which was less than 1% of the article, yet is the only bit really relevant to 1% of those who use wikipedia. Before I rewrite the article (and note I deleted nothing, and still do not intend to), perhaps you might be more positive in your suggestions. The GF material is valid and will return - it is up to you if you want to contribute rather than dismiss it. And the reference to the only dedicated resource is necessary, clearly at LEAST as necessary as other sources on the page.

...Later I notice that some items concerning brewing matters have links to articles you yourself have written. Before I start cleaning up the brewing area, restoring important material, I wonder if I might have clarification over your understanding of the irregular verb "promotion". Is it:

"you promote",
"they promote",
"he promotes",
"I provide important information about a valuable resource I happen to be connected to",
"she promotes" ?

If you continue to replace valid content with lies (that those who cannot consume gluten do not drink beer) I will just have to assume that all your entries lack validity and remove them, repeatedly if necessary. I do not have time to read through every word you contribute. Now I do not want to to do this, it seems very negative, but I will not tolerate absolute mistruths being inserted. Perhaps you could reply to my comments, or I will assume that your mission is purely malicious and act accordingly.

Thank you for at last recognising that I am trying to communicate with you - it seems I have to leave comments everywhere to get your attention. Could you explain to me why you are following me around reversing changes in whatever section I work on? I have not done that to you, have I? Do you not think that someone who does that is essentially on a bullying mission? I have already explained to you that I do NOT want to assume that your contributions are intrinsically negative. I do NOT want to follow you around reversing anything you do. That is what you are doing to me. I do not care what you write about anything that I am uninterested in. But conversely if I work on Dermatitis herpetiformis, you are there making changes to anything you feel may relate to gluten free beer. Why? What's it to you? We can argue about the degree of relevance of gluten free beer to sorghum? Though I think the relevance to sorghum is blindingly obvious - but why would you want to remove a link that takes sufferers of DH to the only serious resource for beer they can drink. You give the impression that you do not care about us, only for eliminating from reality the FACT of gluten free beer. Indeed, YOU are making this a personal mission and one that is essentially aggressive and bullying. Now, I give you a few days to stop following me around mindlessly eliminating my work. Stop taking sudden interests in topics I have worked on, unless you want to be POSITIVE. Grow up. Move one. Find someone else to pick on. I am not going away. I shall be restoring some of the corrupted material, and note I will not be mindlessly deleting the work of others. Then I want to check that you are not returning to a negative, destructive aggressive campaign. I am giving you the opportunity to stop bullying me, for I will not accept that behaviour from you any more. I will even reward you with a bottle conditioned gluten free real ale, should you give me your address. Try it. Then tell me coeliacs "can't drink beer".wikwobble

Yes, we can debate some of these points, and I have mailed the relevant points to the website in question, as I think they will back me up - but you have continually made an assumption. check the facts - not MY website. I associate myself with it - but not MY website. Consider when I have ever said as much? perhaps you take too much for granted? Perhaps you have not seen my answers to specific points you have raised. I consider the website the only resource truly working for millions of us. Why don't you get in touch and join in the discussion over how some of us can get back into society rather than dismissing our interest as deletable? Again, I insist you hear me! Don't jump to conclusions! you are not the only authentic voice! There is more to beer than what existed 30 years ago. The disabled are not going to hide themselves from your view anymore, we are going to sit and drink in the same pubs as you. Like it or not. Tough luck if you do not like what you see. No more hiding away, we have as much right to beer as you, and if you do not like to drink with us with our crippled ways, tough luck pal. Everything I said earlier stands. We have DH, Coeliacs and MS, and many other conditions, and we are part of society. Like it or not.

Now, givin you are now hearing my voice (and it feels a long time since you expressed that) I will calm myself a little and express again my offer to You. You have the chance to contribute rather than bully and dismiss - I am still willing to settle the matter over a beer. I will send it to you with my best wishes. But UNDERSTAND - we have spent a long time with various disorders, and a simple pint is actually more important to us than you, as it is not that easy to come by. I do not regret your opportunities. Why do I get the feeling you deny ours? But it is time, since you seem to seem to take the position that you are the "authentic" voice of beer, to take notice of those that do not have those freedoms you enjoy. Stop. Think again. Communicate with the only website that I see is working for me - a working class bloke with a penchant for beer - Consider how your efforts can liberate us rather than isolate us. For tomorrow I will want to send you a pint, not waste time negating you negativity.

But, to be fair, despite your assumptions and violence, I see some more positive tone. I want to encourage that. Will you recognise in yourself some delete-happy prejudice? I want to believe you do not dismiss - I really do - but look at the article on beer! Do we feel included as it stands? Those with coeliacs, Multiple sclerosis, DH.... Do you really feel YOUR view on beer is "inclusive"? Is it ok for you guys to make sure there is a ramp in the doorway but f***all for us to drink when we get inside?

Before you answer, look carefully at the points I have raised, over some time now, and the offers of friendship proffered. No really, read them again and digest what I have said. Remember I have still not attacked your work. Can you not see why I see you as the aggressor? I feel we have a last chance to stop banging heads, and I regret that you do not see how your behaviour is that of the bully. But it is only perceived threats that brought you to the table! I do not want you to answer until you have really understood my position.

I know you want to type now. But I ask you to stop. Read through our correspondence. Ask yourself if you are truly happy with how you have worked with me. Then answer. For you cannot take back that which you commit to your fingers. I feel you are typing on instinct, not hearing my voice! I have not followed you around, not deleted links that might be seen as self-serving. I again offer you a beer, but make clear that soon I will be adding content to articles. I agree I have learned from you. I think it is time you introspect, and then answer the questions I have raised. Are you really, truly, deeply, happy with everything you have done? Is there no element of pride, ownership, prejudice, spite, acquisitiveness, or egregiousness in your editing?

I think we both know how your answer must begin!

f*** m* its late. But this is not an unimpotant matter. It demands time and I hope you will not reply until you are truly content that it reflects introspection and consideration. My advice, for what it is worth, is to have a beer first. wikwobble

bullying

I have pleaded and pleaded with you not to continue this policy of harassment against me. Why do you feel the need to follow me around reversing anything I do, blind. Why is nothing I do worth anything but deletion? I have asked and asked you to stop. We are at the end of the road for sorting out our problems. Note I have never done anything to topics you have written, but you have followed me to areas of my expertise and blindly reversed anything I do, over and over again. Why are you suddenly the expert on coeliacs disease or dermatitis herpetiformis? I am. But you will not talk to me, just reverse anything I do. If you are not able to step back from your approach, I suggest you ask a third party to review my edits as you lack perspective. I will again be making changes to areas where I have expertise. AGAIN I ask you to either talk to me or, if you cannot, ask someone else to review my changes. I have emailed the person you wrongly assume I am, at the website you wrongly assume is mine. I hope he will be able to convince you of the value of the work I am offering. Although constantly seeing everything I do being reversed is depressing, I will not let you push me off wikipedia, despite that unhelpful suggestion. If this continues I will have to proceed using Wikipedia's suggested methods. However, you could just stop being the playground bully. You are too old to play that role. wikwobble

bullying, further

I have asked you to suggest to another that they review my work. Please do so. It seems a reasonable request and your refusal to do so reflects only upon yourself. wikwobble

Thank you for drawing our issues to another user's attention. Also for communicating with me concerning the editing disputes we have. I think both steps are a positive move forward. I hope we can still disagree strongly. There is still a bottle with your name on it, I do not offer what I am not prepared to deliver. wikwobble

glutgen free beer==

Hello. I have been asked to reply to this point, though I am not sure if I am comfortable doing so as my website appears in the refrences, and I don’t want to comment on those choices, made by others, other than to note some issues. Firsly the image. I provided that as requested by someone editing Wikipedia. I sent what was asked to that representative of Wiipedia, and made it public domain, but I think it is not really ok for someone within Wikipedia to then chop it up without discussing it. I am not sure where the limits to public domain are, but I would have thought it at least a little rude. I went to the history page to see what refernces were made, and what you had changed. Can I indicate that C Samgalski writes direclty for my site and that articles on the sit3e itself were written by her and sent to me, not reprinted (as opposed to other Smagaldski articdles that are only linkied from my site). I am not sure where else you can find some of them, but they were sent to me directly for putting onto the website. One of them is a completely different article to the one you changed it to, and is more generic advice than the other.. If I undersatned what I am looking at, all the other refernces to Caroline’s articles are to Bella, aren’t they? Lastly on this, it is not my fault that there is no other site that focusses on gf beer and is independent. I wish there was. Then you could fill the page with references eh? And I wouldn’t waste my time running th site. Just one last thing. When I went iinto the history I saw a note from you dated 15 June – 19.08. Just wanted to mention that I had not planned entering any beuty competitions. steve 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

I am not sure I waqnt my full name on any sit eon the internet, other than my own.steve 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

do I assume that you did, or that you did not, revieve my email?

Please be very careful what you say on tghe gf beer article. There is no evidence that brewing makes beer safe for coeliacs. Piles of evidence that pllenty of gluten is not converted to amino acids. this is really dangerous. people reading the article will be very happy top believe statemnts to the contraqry and persuade themselves that one or two pints a wekk is ok. This leads to bowel cancer ande oseoperosis. How caqn i stress any mopre clearly the need to be accurate and not allow these dangerous claims be given equal balance with the scvietific evidence? if you have not recdieved my email, i do not care who yuo think i am, what you think of my face, or whether you have a jauniced view of me and my work. All you need to know is that a lot of people can die if theyt are not told an accurate truth. steve 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. My own research into the matter of brewing with a modest amount of barley shows there are differences of opinion. The aim of Wikipededia is to show a balanced view. Words like "claim" rather than "feel" give a point of view that is considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You are so close to your subject that you feel that your own reading of the evidence is the only view to take. My edits to the article are only trying to put in place a balance - to suggest that the brewers themselves have one view, and that there is a conflicting view which is not, as yet, supported by any more convincing evidence than the brewers view, but that the conclusion is that perhaps, for reasons of safety, it might be advisable to drink beers such as Budweiser with caution and in moderation. This article, for example, gives a balanced view: Is Beer Gluten-Free and Safe for People with Celiac Disease? SilkTork 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am oviously going to have to convince you - which is going to be timconsuming. There are loads of sources but they tend nto to directly say "trher is gluten in beer". Why? why woulod you write an article saying b"eer is wet"? It is directly observable. so is the result of an ELISA test. Thre is controversy over this test, but NOT over whether it detects gluten, but if it is sensitrive enough to pick up (or accurately account for) hordein. If anything it underestimates ethe level of glluten in beer. Also obvious is the head on a beer. What causes this? It is not detergent left over after cleaning the vat. It is caused by a sticky-stretchiness -GLUTEN (see para 1 under traditional beers at http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/beer_and_gluten.htm - by the way this Fosters comment was written this way after I persoanlly indicated and proved their former comments were misleading). gf beers use different ingredientas and when there is a head it is caused by non-gliadin, nom-hordein, non-secalin proteins. how do we know? these proteins cannot be c`reated, and were not present from the start. I talk to the development scietists trying to improve ELISA. My research is extensive, and lets face it matters a lot to me. I am very happy you are going to do a point by point with wikwoble, I suppose I can oversee it. But please do not place anything dangerous ther until we have decided on a form or words. What you wrote is not balanced - it just give equal weight to a myth and a scie3ntific and provable fact. That is not balance. steve 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time consuming is the nature of Wikipedia! Time consuming, frustrating and sometimes stressful! But the aim is to create a balanced and credible online free encyclopedia - so all the work is worth it in the end. The process we are now going through is seen as one of the most valuable aspects for the ultimate credibility of Wikipedia. Editors debating the finer points of an article. While this goes on, however, there are established and important conventions that are at the heart of Wikipedia.

One is that "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." There appears to be - intentional or not - a desire to promote the glutenfreebeerfestival website. My concern, and I hope you share that concern, is that the Gluten free beer article remains free from the taint of being a promotional aid for a website that you appear to be quite passionate about. The article in itself should provide all the information a reader should need to evaluate the situation regarding gluten free beers. A link to a website which reviews gluten free beers is appropriate, but comments on how good that website is, and how significant or important the work of Steve Ford is, or an inflated sense of the importance of having a range of gluten free beers available at a local beer festival do the core values of the article no good at all. Reference links which "appear" to be more concerned with getting the name of the website on the page as many times as possible (intentional or not) are not giving the article a good impression. Both our aims here are to make an article on gluten free beer as brilliant as possible. Any stuff which looks like it is promotional taints the article. If there is an alternative route then, for the benefit of the article, lets go down that route. My next stage will be to go back to using references to the Bella articles as that takes away some additional references to the glutenfreebeerfestival website, and takes away the taint of the article being used as an advertisement for glutenfreebeerfestival.com .

Another convention is that material should not be original research. This is a tricky area and does cause a lot of stress! In order to show that an article is not original research, we like to have valid referencing. Some of the current referencing is to Dr Steve Ford of the glutenfreebeerfestival website. It is questionable how valid he is as a reliable source. It might be better, given the controversy surrounding the formation of this article and the ongoing debate, that Dr Ford's primary sources are used rather than quotes from Dr Ford himself, just to avoid any suggestion of original research, and to give more solid credibility to the viewpoints.

The final point is the one about point of view. Many of us have a slight bias in favour of a certain point of view. We have an opinion. That is why it is important to have a peer review of what we have written. It is an academically rigorous process and is valued among experienced editors. The end result is hopefully a balanced and hardened article. There are times in this ongoing debate about the gluten free beer article when I do question my own involvement, and the unbiased nature of my editing. I have asked an experienced Admin to look at what has been going on, and he feels that the process is unfolding as it should. I admit, though, I still have doubts at times, but I am hopeful that the step by step process of editing the article will reveal any potential bias on my part. SilkTork 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this is not for me. My point to you is about the dangerfous material that could arise (and did arise) under a mislpaced idea of balnce. I have already said I will not get involved in any refernce to me and my site - Take this up with the person you are primarly debating things with. But engage me on the point i made above. Personnaly I don't care if my name appears on these pages, I do care if someone uses your words to poisen themselves. steve 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very aim of Wikipedia is to give all important points of view. It would be inappropriate and against the principles of Wiki for one view to dominate, unless that was a dominant view in itself. Wikipedia is not a soap-box. It is an encyclopedia. You are sailing slightly on the wrong side of Original Research and Point of View for an encyclopedia entry. Strong, one-sided views are appropriate on glutenfreebeerfestival.com, but not here. Here we hope to give both sides of the debate - EVEN IF WE DISAGREE WITH THEM! I acknowledge your points, and I hope that you will see that my careful edits include notes of caution. But I feel we would be wrong to dismiss the brewery scientists with an airy wave of the hand and the summary that they don't what they are talking about, even though there appears to be no HARD EVIDENCE that they are wrong - only SUPPOSITION (no matter how sensible that supposition actually is!). A quote such as this, from Donald D. Kasarda, research chemist in the Crop Improvement and Utilization Research Unit of the United States Department of Agriculture, shows the lack of hard evidence: "There is some evidence from analytical methods involving antibodies prepared to gliadins that there are peptides in beer that react with these antibodies. It is not proved beyond any doubt that the peptides in beer are actually toxic to celiac patients, but it is quite possible that the peptides remaining in any barley-based or wheat-based beer, Sapporo included, are harmful to celiac patients." To present your views, which are clearly not in line with Dr Kasarda's - an expert in the field, as hard facts would be inappropriate. SilkTork 13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand the point. It is not about peptides it is about gluten NOT being chenged in the brewing process. it IS hard evidence that ELISA tests show remaining gluten after brewing. I am not interested in suposed effects of peptides - I am interested in UNCHANGED gliadin and hordein. Sapporo's evidence is IRRELEVANT and used by those who do not understanfd what they mean - dangerous. You know what they say abougt a little knowledge? Thank you also for the lesson in epistemology but I sadly have to give them avry day. Note I have not put a single reference to my site on this article. it is not about whether I enjoy this arguemnt, but whether half understood comments are dangerous. There is zero evidence that gluten is remnoved to safe levels by brweing. There is plenty of evidence (not sensible suposition) that it is not. you are baloancing arguments over wherter pens have ink on the evidence thatpencils are ink-free. Please understasnd this point. steve 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have knowledge of the subject, and some passion. The concern here is not about how right you are, but about the available debate. You appear to think of the article as an essay in convincing people of the dangers of regular beers. I am concerned with producing a balanced encyclopedic entry on the different viewpoints on the subject of gluten free beer. Asserting loudly how right you are in your view is actually not the way to convince me that you want to create a balanced article. Is there some material that you could point me to that you feel should be in the article, but is not? Or are you suggesting that the balance of opinion in the article is too biased in one direction? SilkTork 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually reading what I am writing? I am not interested in seeing my name on this page or references to my websiet . You are not givbvn a balenced view. there is no evidence to support what you are asying. Remove that reference RIGHT NOW. I would rather there was no article to gf beer on this site than one that encourageds readers "to maqke3 up own mind" ('Oh look, no one knows for sure') too many will use bad evidence3 like yours to rationalise po;isening themselves. And many like me will have no sympotroms - untjil they fall over and finde it is too lat e to repair their bones, or have bowel cancer. Look at teh fosters item. It is evidence. Look at the sapporo quote. It is not. If you do not undersatnd the difference find someone who does. your balance is irresaponsible. from the two sources, thaqt is 100% ecvidence. Stop trying to prove you are right, get over the ego trip, and do the right thing. the BALANCE of known facts are that there are DEFINITELY dangerous glycoproteins after a mash is brewd. It is not beeing loud - it is 100% evidence thta no one takenm seriously denies. if you ned more try http://www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/sheehan.htm or http://www.vscht.cz/kch/kestazeni/post03/8.pdf or http://www.asbcnet.org/journal/pdfs/2006/ASBCJ-64-0166.pdf or a multitude of references. dont get disatracteds by words like "peptides" - your use of thar other ;matter amonts to dissembliing not balance. balance is not givbeing ;equal weight to truth and untruth - or if it is this is notr an encyclopedia. lastly, you might find this entertaining. I have to do it for a living. i am only doing it here to stop your loack of underswtanding huritng sojmeone else. steve 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image was sent to me by the above user who had trouble uploading it himself. Attached was the following text (I took the liberty of correcting typo's etc, just for ease of understanding): "this represents the ELISA sampling of two gluten free beers - one with non-gluten ingredients, one using barley. Note that the test on a final product reveals residual gluten - so the second is a "low-gluten" gluten free beer. The image is not suitable for the article itself, as it uses confidential certification that would require permissions from various sources, and would mean little to most people. However, it is important that you are convinced, as the article I read this morning suggests there are aguments on both sides. All beers made from barley or wheat have residual hordein or gliadin. The only evidence that can really deal with that fact would be a certificate that showed zero residual gluten according to ELISA - but even then there is a growing point of view that these tests underrepresents hordein. This is because the test's primary role is to detect gliadin in wheat products. This should not be thought to suggest there are false positives. The only concern is false negatives."wikwobble