Talk:List of beer styles/Archive 1

Archive 1

List or fork

OK. Firstly, this article is heavily redundant already with beer style. A list should be a list; this is a fork.

Secondly, it's already making the same mistakes and assumptions as the beer style article has.

The idea is all right, but this is ground which has been gone over and shown to be not so simple as copying a list off an unreliable website. --Stlemur (talk)

I've made a genuine effort not to copy anything, and the list as it stands is more or less how Mr. Jackson described beer styles (with the addition of a few Belgian styles). Also, it's not a fork because I only borrowed a couple of the headings, which I then rewrote quite a bit. What errors in particular are you referring to? – ClockworkSoul 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, laundry list:

1. Pale ale. Where is it? Indeed, what is it?
2. Kolsch is arguably a lager even though it's top-fermented, because to a German brewer "lager" doesn't have anything to do with the yeast and everything to do with the lagering. This brings up the broader point that the ale/lager "division" is a recent development in beer discussions and doesn't fit into most historical contexts.
3. Classifying lager by color doesn't make any sense. Hellesbock is undoubtedly a bock and many of them are lighter than some Pilseners. Pilsener, Vienna lager, and Munich lager are all names from geography correlating only coincidentally to color.
4. The heading "Belgian and French ales" not only ignores current Dutch brewing but also obscures the existence of a spice-and-herb beer continuum stretching from Belgium all the way across northern Europe into Poland, Finland, Russia, and the Baltic States. It also implies a commonality through geographic proximity among several beer styles that are only related by coincidence.
5. Lambics are, by the top-fermenting definition, all ales. They're also all sour beers. It's another false hierarchy.
6. "Hybrid or mixed style beers use modern techniques and materials instead of, or in addition to, traditional aspects of brewing" is a meaningless statement. You could reasonably argue that boiling is, for English beers, a "modern" technique. Who defines what's "traditional"?
7. That said, this whole section seems like more a "misc/none of the above" category, when that simply isn't true. Beer with herbs or honey or spices instead of hops was the dominant brew in Britain and northern Europe for milennia. Smokes beers were dominant in Europe up 'til the 18th century because until kilning was developed the only way to dry malt was over an open wood fire. What's more, rachbier is rarely just generic smoked beer -- beers are rauchbiers while still being porters or marzens or what have you.
8. Finally, wood-aged beers -- who's calling that a style in the first place?

I know I'm being harsh here but really, this territory has been covered...I feel a bit frustrated with this article as written as it seems like a complete reboot to the state of the Wikipedia beer style article about a year ago. --Stlemur (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your constructive criticism is welcome, keep it coming! After all, as a wise man said, "to avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.". Pale ale is obviously an unintentional omission. As for the wood-aged beer: I had actually meant to remove that. Thanks for the catch! – ClockworkSoul 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and pale ale is already there, in the ale section. – ClockworkSoul 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I had already posted some corrections on the beer project talk page, but have made the changes here since no one has acted. I just found this talk page. I've removed dubbel and tripel from Belgian ales as they are not styles, but naming conventions. I've also removed "helles bock" from the dark lagers for obvious reasons. And I've also changed the BJCP's "Flanders red ale" to something more accurate. Also I've changed the label for lambics to beer type since it is not a style. There was talk about the use of "beer style" on the project talk page and this is, it seems to me, a good example of why it is not the best choice. It think there are still problems with this list, but I am not familiar enough in those areas to propose changes. In general, I completely agree with Stlemur's comments. I know this may be kind of a wild idea, but what about organising the beers by taste/flavour (as, for example, sour ales) rather than using the old system? Mikebe (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the sheer amount of overlap and disputability I think a simple inclusive alphabetic list is the least prejudiced. If we insist on categorization (and some things, like bocks, are a natural category I have no objection to), then there's no reason a particular kind of beer shouldn't be listen in two or more places. --Stlemur (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your alphabetical list idea is fine. I see nothing wrong with it. I go to many pubs in Belgium and the Netherlands (and many other countries) and have never, even in an intense beer pub like de Kulminator in Antwerp, seen a beer list organised along lines like in this article. Generally, here (in the low countries) beers are organised as: Trappist, abbey, lambic/geuze/kriek, pils, blonde, brown, etc. As far as our readers are concerned, I think alphabetical gives them as much accurate information as they want. I admit, the self-proclaimed "beer geeks" who think the BJCP is a deity, may not be happy, but I believe almost everyone else will be. (thought to add that last bit) Mikebe (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally was unhappy with the purely alphabetical list because it provides no information regarding even the disputed groupings of beers, but perhaps we can include a little information regarding the individual styles in the list to provide at least a little of this context? – ClockworkSoul 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Once you bring in another form of organisation (styles, for example), you add a layer of complexity that must then been explained (preferably, using notable references). Don't forget that for the "average" user, not knowing style hierarchy will effectively hinder them from using the list. Shouldn't style information, where it is relevant, be included in the articles? Mikebe (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, I'm glad we agree! Rather than assigning a pseudo-arbitrary method of organization (any one of which would immediately be rejected be some members of our project or another), we enhance the alphabetical list with a very brief summary of the item, a little like this completely unrelated list (sans the hierarchical information, of course). This would make the list more useful to the "average" user by not forcing them to read each and every article to see which beers are generally agreed to be ales. Citations are no barrier for those willing to put the work towards a worthy end product. – ClockworkSoul 15:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreement is a lot better than arguing. Let's hope we both have the same idea. If you could make a sample, perhaps that might be a good way to make sure we all agree. Mikebe (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

here's a source. Berliner Weisse is listed under "sour beers", which is under "belgian and french beers". I'm moving it to "wheat beers". — goethean ॐ 20:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

American-style lager

Is there enough provenance for this to be considered a "style"? The term is used, and it's used as part of the description of the history of beer in America, and also as a category for beer competitions - but not widely and consistently as a "style", though there are notable examples. The term is used by the Brewers Association - [1] - as part of the categories for its beer competition. As such the term is repeated by various brewers who have entered a beer in that category and won an award. The BJCP uses similar terms for a similar purpose to the Brewers Association, but as a variation of the group "Light Lager": 1A. Lite American Lager, 1B. Standard American Lager, 1C. Premium American Lager - [2]. The American-style lager article is not clear and the sources are not reliable, but appears to be talking about the history and development of lager in America. I've pulled down various books from my shelves and the major European writers talk about American lager not so much a style, but as a lager brewed in America, and Budweiser is used as an example. The closest I can see to American lager being seen as a style is mainly in home-brewing books - Charlie Papazian's Complete Joy says: "Today's typical American beer is a light-colored, light-bodied pilsener-lager beer, a style very different from the American beer of yesteryear...."; Laurie Strachan in Great Beers talks about Budweiser in a section called American light and says: "American light, as the style is generically known, has taken pilsner about as far as possible in the direction of gentle inoffensiveness. It probably deserves a place among the great beer styles of the world simply because it sells so much, but it's hard to see any other reason for considering it." The Great American Microbrewery Beer Book by Jennifer Thompson has a glossary of beers and has "American lager: Clean, light-bodied, and mild-tasting, American lager is a good summertime beer." It's kind of borderline. The American-style lager article needs re-writing and renaming (as American lager), and needs to point up both the history of the development of lager within the USA, and how Budweiser has come to define a light, mild-tasting lager that is seen as American. Though I'm not clear at this point how different American lager is as a style from the generic global pale lager. BJCP (not a reliable source I know, but let's take what's out there as a starting point) has American lager in the same group as Helles and Dortmunder - simply a pale lager, with the usual understanding that the hop levels are lower than that found in beers termed pilsner (apart, of course, from all those occasions when a brewer will market the same beer as Lager in one market and Pilsner in another depending on the local understanding of the terms!) SilkTork *^YES! 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Style v Type

SilkTork, I don't understand why you have separated the list into style and type. I do not see any benefit for this separation. Why can we not have a simple list called "types of beer" or something similar and leave it at that? Mikebe (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Because we are talking about the term "beer style" that term is central to this list. The entries included in Types are those for which we have a name or term, but the term would not be widely regarded as a style - the term Cask ale for example is not considered to refer to a style. There are a number of entries which are debatable, and that's what we would do here - discuss which beers we can describe as "styles" based on reliable sources, and which we can say are not regarded as styles, based on reliable sources. Our own personal views and knowledge are not to be taken into account. We would simply use our knowledge to set up the list as a starting point and to source reliable references. But it would, of course, be inappropriate - regardless of how we personally see it - to deny the existence of the term "beer style" as the term is very widely used and there are plenty of books on the subject. SilkTork *^YES! 18:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In effect, it seems, we have traded one complex system for another. Since this is simply a list, I don't see why we need to add another level of complexity. If you feel it necessary to distinguish between style and type, why not do it in the articles? It's only a list. Mikebe (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if we are to have a list of styles it might be appropriate to have in that list those terms which might or have been associated at times with beer styles to give a clear distinction between those terms which ARE considered styles, and which are not - backed with reliable sources. At the moment this is not by any means a finished product - what we have here is simply the starting point. I'm kinda looking forward to the investigation.

But I do understand what you are saying, and I have considered the notion myself. One thought was perhaps renaming this list. I have considered List of beer styles and types, List of beer terms and Beer glossary.

Another option might be to remove those beer terms which are NOT beer styles, Though I would suggest if we take that route, that we do that at a later stage after we have firmed up what terms are considered reliably to be beer styles.

And it might also be appropriate to have - at this stage at least - a middle section of those terms which are sometimes considered to be styles.

Hmmm. What I'd like us to avoid, is us becoming the arbitrators of what is or is not a style so there is something to be said for just having a list of terms which MIGHT be considered to be styles....

Another approach is to do a sortable table with sources - if we can find appropriate sources we agree could be used:

Chart

Term	Michael Jackson	Roger Protz	Fred Eckhardt]]	Laurie Strachan	Brewers Publications	CAMRA	BJCP	Reference
Altbier	Yes
Barley wine	Yes
Brown ale	Yes
India pale ale	Yes

There are other possibilities. SilkTork *^YES! 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need some "entry" articles -- articles that can be read by people with an interest, but no knowledge about beer. Right now, we have very few articles like that. This list could be a good introduction for the beer beginner, as well as a handy guide to the more knowledgeable beer drinker. I think our difference is not about what information should be included, but where it should be. Why not a simple, clean list that serves as an entry point for those people who want more in-depth information, which is just a click away? As far as naming, "type" or "sort" are all-inclusive, while "style" is restrictive. The chart you've made demonstrates as clearly as I've ever seen the problems in trying to sort out styles. Certainly, between all of us, we can come up with a phrase that is neutral, yet describes what the list contains. I thought some of your suggestions were quite good. Mikebe (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

SilkTort's idea has the advantage of clearly demonstrating that the beer style classification system is highly subjective and varies greatly from one source to another (and from one country to another), that it is not a matter of fact versus fiction, but of different opinions. This misconception that only one system can be correct and all others must therefore be wrong has resulted in quite a bit of misunderstanding and confusion. It would also have the advantage of being able to say that certain styles, like hefeweizen, are universally accepted, while others are more iffy. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just an idea (and I completely made up the data I am adding here for display purposes only). You might have some cases in which some authors see more than one style where others see only one:

Term	Michael Jackson	Roger Protz	Fred Eckhardt	Laurie Strachan	Brewers Publications	CAMRA	BJCP	Reference
Altbier	Alt	Altbier	etc.
Barley wine	Barleywine	Barley Wine	etc.
Brown ale	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	English Brown Ale, American Brown Ale	Northern English Brown ale, Southern English Brown ale, American Brown Ale
India pale ale	India pale ale	India pale ale	India pale ale	India pale ale	India pale ale	India pale ale	India pale ale

— goethean ॐ 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that amendment as names do vary. SilkTork *^YES! 19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will get around to doing this - as I think goethean's amendment is the way to go. SilkTork *^YES! 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the DIPA category? LouPepe (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)