Talk:India pale ale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Top

The high hops in IPA were not really for wild yeasts, they are mostly controlled by competition from the desired yeast while it is still fermenting. Hops mainly control bacteria.

I believe that IPA was specially brewed for India, the British had been going to Australia and the US for a long time before IPA came about and would have had the same problems.

Good edits. I believe that IPA was primarily shipped to India rather than places like Australia because, in India, the British maintained a significant army. I initially thought that the hops inhibited bacteria infection, however, I have at least one reference which states that the hops are to control contamination by wild yeasts. Do you have any actual references that might reliably claim that the main purpose of the heavy hopping is to prevent bacterial infection? (BTW, please sign your posts -- use four tilde characters) Stewart Adcock 19:46, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IPA uses tame yeast. However, if one wanted to use wild yeast (to make, for example, a lambic), any means of collecting wild yeast would also collect bacterial spores. This would necessitate some manner of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak: generally, lambics have an extremely high hop content to keep down bacteria while allowing yeast to grow. Perhaps you have confused these two topics?--HTHPolyparadigm 05:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have actual references at hand, that was just what I learned at brewing classes at the U of San Francisco. I'll search around some. --Bob Palin 22:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A quick look turns up this article at Purdue U that names the type of bacteria controlled and the compounds which cause this effect: [1] It doesn't really make sense that hops would prevent wild yeasts since then you would think that they would also affect the desirable yeasts (speculation). In Belgium where they expose the beer to wild yeasts they still use hops though not at IPA level of course. --Bob Palin 22:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In that case it seems fair to think that the high level of hops, indeed, hinder bacterial rather than yeast infections. To be honest, this is what I originally thought but I was convinced otherwise after reading a couple of (probably incorrect) books/brouches about brewing. Stewart Adcock 18:44, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Temp Page written to replace earlier article

No ales in India

The article states "All Indian beers are either lagers or strong lagers". While I can't come up with a counterexample, this seems like an unreasonable claim. Surely a country with 1 billion people has at least one small ale being brewed? -- Kaszeta 14:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No - unfortunately India does not currently have even one small ale being brewed. -- Rameses 00:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That still sounds like a hell of a sweeping statement... sjorford (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of ales being brewed in India. There may be a brewer somewhere in India making an ale, but so far it is unknown to the beer world. To take away the sting from the statement I am removing the "all". SilkTork 09:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with silktork - recent beer travellers to india have reported back they could find no ale. Xproudfoot 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone did an analysis on the yeast strain of every availible commercial beer in India it can not be definitively stated that there are no ales produced in India. Of course it is likely there are no ales produced in India, which can be said, but barring proof it needs to reflect that lager is simply dominant in India. There are many beers that one might expect to be either ale or lager and one would be wrong. Yuengling Porter for example is a lager while Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat is not an ale, but rather uses a lager strain of yeast. It is possible some brewery in India is fermenting with a faster (thus more profitable) ale strain and then cold conditioning. Yet still pitching the product as lager. Degarth

Asia's first beer?

The article currently states: "In the late 1820s Edward Dyer moved from England to set up the first brewery in India at Kasauli in the Himalaya mountains, producing Asia's first beer Lion." but didn't beer originally come from mesopotamia, and therefore asia? Dyer may have had the first official brewery in asia, but to say that it was asia's first beer seems highly incorrect. let me know if i am just misinformed. --Someones life 22:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that the ancient mesopotamians were producing beer certainly as early as 6,000 years ago and possibly much earlier. However, the advent of Islam stopped the production of beer and wine throughout the region from around 1,000 AD. Following this period there is no record of Asian beer production until the early 1800's when Edward Dyer set up his brewery at Kasauli. I have changed the text to say that Lion was Asia's first beer brand. I hope this more accurate description is satisfactory. -- Rameses 00:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Lion is a brewer that made Beer, not IPA, If they made a Pale Ale that makes it 'Indian' Pale Ale, not India Pale Ale. I move for the whole section about the Lion Brewery to be stricken from this article, due to it being completely irrelevant. - 209.248.175.82 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is the current capitalization correct? India Pale ale? --Daniel11 04:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No it should be "India Pale Ale". Would someone please let me know how to change it? -- Rameses 00:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll move the page. request the move. -- Karnesky 07:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it actually a proper noun? It looks as though it ought to be India pale ale to me. sjorford (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. It's most usually capitalised. Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Beer & Independence

Interesting stuff ! But a glaring date typo - India got independence in 1947 not 1949 ! Yes there is great scope for more varieties of beer in India (a large market) including IPA (the heat and long transportation are probably still a factor) -- [ (QADean -

Sorry, it isn't a date typo but a punctuation error. I have changed it from "Following independence in 1949, N.N. Mohan took over management of the company" to read "Following independence, in 1949 N.N. Mohan took over management of the company". I hope that it is now clear that some time after independence (which you correctly state was in 1947) N.N. Mohan took over management of the company. -- Rameses 00:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Subsections?

It seems thisa article cold use some cleaning and focus, maybe what it needs is to be divided up into sections. History and Styles. Styles could be British (Imperial and Domestic), Indian, American (Standard and Double). The heading is misleading, it talks about historic IPA and not about the majority of what is being consumed as IPA the differences between the american style (60+ IBU's 6-10% ABV) and the british style (30-45 IBUs 6-7% ABV) should be up at the top in the description of the beer. I apologize for being so american centric, but this beer style would be a footnote if it wasn't for the microbreweries in the US. -- next362 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

sidebar

Just needs some data then it can be added to the top of the main page.

India Pale Ale
Country of Origin	England
Original Gravity	****-****
Final Gravity	****-****
Bitterness IBU	35-50
Colour (SRM)	**-**
Attenuation	**-**
Yeast type	Ale
Malt percentage	**-**
Alcohol by volume	5.5-7%
Serving Temperature	45-50°F
BJCP style #	14A
This article forms part of a series on beers and breweries of the world.

-- next362 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The IBUs need to go a lot higher for IPA! Especially if this article is going to be merged with double IPA, but even if it isn't. Troegs nugget nectar for example has IBUs way above 50 as do many comparable IPAs on the market. Where did this data come from? Xproudfoot 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Pale Ale

I removed the redirect and removed the reference to Strong Pale Ale as this would be better discussed in a section of its own.

This is a very good article. I like the comments detailing the difference between American IPA and the British IPA. Martyn Cornell has done some fine research on the origins of IPA which I will incorporate into the article in due course.

SilkTork 09:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

List of IPAs

i'd appreciate a list of commercially available IPAs. Streamless 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph in "Today" Section

I'm taking it out. It really just doesn't make sense to have a paragraph re: brewing IPA in India first as it's a British style. Personally, I found it a bit confusing. Why should it be mentioned that no IPA is brewed in India now when there never really was? It's better just mentioning how the style is dying in its native land and get on to the Americans who're now carrying the IPA torch. Still, I can't say it's not worthwhile info--just poorly placed. If someone wants to find a better place for it, here it is:

Today, no brewer in India makes India Pale Ale. Indian beers are either lagers or strong lagers (8 % alcohol - such as the popular MAX super strong beer). International Breweries Pvt. Ltd. have recently announced an intention to work with Mohan Meakin to produce and launch an India Pale Ale called Indian IPA from India's first brewery at Kasauli. International Breweries have stated their intention to reverse the historic flow of beer by sending it from the Himalaya mountains in India to Britain by ship.

Frank 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging Double India Pale Ale with the IPA article

Merging DIPA into IPA sounds like a good idea. I would suggest that it be done under a new heading titled: "Varieties of India Pale Ale". Information on other varieties of IPA, such as Imperial Pale Ale, should be moved under this new heading.

--Rameses 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense to merge "double IPA" here. What makes something a "double" IPA is a matter of degree and marketing, not a strict categorical difference - no one regulates these labels - it's usually just stronger IPA, often (hopefully) with even more care to produce a complex, fine flavor. Xproudfoot 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I merged the article; working on redirect fixes. --Crazysunshine 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all redirects are fixed. The actual merging of content into article might not have been perfect, though; apologies if there's any duplicate information or anything of that sort. --Crazysunshine 23:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Imperial/India/etc.

India Pale Ale is NOT the same as Imperial Pale Ale, though the two styles share many traits. Imperial Pale Ale refers to ales for export to the Tsar, while India Pale Ale refers stricly to the style of ale brewed for the troops in India. Jamesg 11:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats because the english were exporting "stong"(which would become to be known as "Imperial") stouts, not pale ales, and please start a entry for your issue. - 69.47.132.138 04:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a context for "imperial" pale ale. What time frame are you talking about? In current use, it's just another phrase meaning the same thing double IPA does. It's a marketing angle, and usually reflects higher alcohol content. I have no idea whether historically it may have meant something else, but it doesn't today in the beer markets I take part in (which is by the way, of course global...)Xproudfoot 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Xproudfoot is correct, there was never an Imperial IPA, it is a misnomer invented on the popularity of Imperial Stout, Stouts were made in england for the russian court, there were extra strong Stouts made for export. Due to the popularity with the Russian Imperial Court, they developed the name/style of Imperial Stout. IPA's were never specify exported to a Royal/Imperial Court. I do not know the specifics on how the title got popular, but it is very popular as an American term for American Double IPA's. Double IPA refers to the power of both the Hop flavor and the alcohol content. Double/Imperial IPA should be a sub-article under this article, but it should also specify the misnomer behind 'Imperial' and if someone could research to find out how this title came to be it would make a great addition to the page. I personally have been scolding mid-west American brewers who use the 'Imperial' title for their Double IPA's. - 209.248.175.82 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a bit too entrenched now to do anything about it-- in addition to Imperial IPAs, we also have Imperial Pilseners and Imperial Brown Ales. I also suppose there's a compelling argument that a brewery can call their beer whatever the hell they want to, including the much-reviled "Triple IPA" (which really is just a barleywine.) I think that imperial pale ale (which, as far as I can tell is largely historical) and imperial IPA refer to two different things. Imperial Pale Ale, historically, was the hopped-up pale ale brewed for the Russian Empire and now means the same thing as India Pale Ale. Imperial IPA is a term made up by American brewers (but then again, so is Double IPA) to refer to the hop monsters they were churning out. --Kajerm 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

IPA and Imperial "Double" IPA may have a similay name but they are much different in my opinion I recommend not merging the articles--Ted-m 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested change in redirect for IPA from International Phonetic Alphabet to IPA (disambiguation)

Please comment. --Karnesky 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

First Double IPA

I understand that there's very little written history on certain styles, especially modern ones. But which is correct for the origin of the Double IPA? There's a link to a Union Tribune article and a Beer Advocate review. Some clarification there is in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.123.77 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

NPOV

I shortened the last sentence in the article, removing the clearly POV portion "...such are the economics of modern brewing". The word "inadequate" in what remains of the sentence also makes me a little wary, but I'll leave it for now, don't want to step too much on other people's work. Also, the term "laying down" in that sentence should be defined or linked, but I don't know how best to do it - maybe someone else should? Zarvok | Talk 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's unencyclopedic and POV as all hell. I'm not sure how it wormed its way back into the article, but I've excised it again. This article seems to have a few deeper POV issues; it spends an awful lot of time musing about beer style distinctions (occasionally resorting to weasel words) that I care about but which really might just serve to confuse the average reader. -- Kajerm 15:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that whole DIPA section is questionable in this regard. Somebody doesn't like Double IPAs... And what's with the scare quote forest? This is a serious problem. Dunkelweizen 16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

undefined abbreviations in the text

IBU is not defined and is linked only late in the article to the article on International Bitterness Units

APV is not defined and it is not clear what it means

ABV is not defined or linked to its definition but means Alcohol By Volume

Alexander Keith's Is Not A Lager

In the article:

In Canada, Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale has become popular as the microbrewery movement has taken off since the 1990s. However, unlike its modern American cousins, it is not a true IPA but rather one which has been toned down for modern tastes and is by all accounts a basic lager.

While Alexander Keith's may not be a good example of an IPA, it still uses top-fermenting ale yeasts and is therefore, by definition, an Ale -- not a Lager. Am I wrong?

DrSkrud 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of this belongs in the article at all. Does every IPA need a little writeup? Dunkelweizen 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA has unfortunately become a marketing term as well. This is a good guide on what would qualify something as a particular style of beer BJCP Guidelines. See page 16, section 14. DougieFresh 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious problem with unsourced history

This article has a serious problem with unsourced and inaccurate statements. There was NO real difficulty exporting beer to the East: contemporary evidence shows everything from small beer to porter surviving the journey. There were NO "tremendous efforts" by British breers to solve this non-existent problem. There is NO evidence George Hodgson, a small-time brewer(1), actually invented IPA, or deliberately designed a recipe for a beer to survive the journey to India. There is NO evidence India was a "very tempting" market for British brewers before the 1820s: if it had been, a small brewer such as Hodgson would not have been able to build up a virtual monopoly. The beer exported to Russia was NOT called "Imperial Pale Ale", it was either Burton Ale if it was pale ale from Burton upon Trent, or Imperial Stout if it was a strong stout from London. It is NOT true that "The national IPA was less hopped compared to the export version, in order to speed up the fermentation" - by "national" IPA (is this an Indian English expression?) I assume the writer means IPA sold in Britain. If this was less-hopped, it was to speed up maturation, not fermentation.

Oh, and the East Indiamen ships did NOT travel "along the coast of Africa", they went via Madeira, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil and St Helena to get round the Cape (see Antony Wild, The East India Company, 1999)

For a more accurate version of the origins of IPA see Martyn Cornell, Beer: The Story of the Pint, 2003, pp132-139.

Zythophile (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) HA Monckton, A History of English Ale and Beer, 1966, p212; Peter Mathias, The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830, 1959, pp190-182

Zythophile, perhaps you would like to correct some of the inaccuracies in the article. It's in real need of improvement. Patto1ro (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Zythophile, please go ahead and edit as necessary. Dunkelweizen (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Second the request for Zythophile to correct the history section of the article --LarsMarius (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zythophile that the history section is in need of improvement. A lot of it is common lore about IPA contained here, but none of it is cited. For reasons that i don't really understand, common lore on IPA is not accurate, and this article should correct rather than reinforce those ideas. One of the pieces of common lore that this article is aggravating is the idea that there was pale ale and then someone super charged it for export to india. But my understanding is that the first Pale Ale was, essentially, of the sort that was exported to India. Anyway, I have a few sources at home on this subject and will tighten up the history section once I have reviewed those. philosofool (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are two good sources for the history, both with sources listed:

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/false-ale-quotes/myth-4-george-hodgson-invented-ipa-to-survive-the-long-trip-to-india/

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/search/label/IPA

Mikebe (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good, Philosofool. Also, it may help to use one of Martyn Cornell's books (he's Zythophile, right?). Revisionism is always controversial, and while Mikebe's Zythophile link is especially helpful, I think we'll be more successful with sources that use footnotes, etc. If this becomes a heated discussion, ultimately we will have to compare notes to that degree of scrutiny, I'm afraid. Dunkelweizen (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Revision

I have significantly revised the history section of this article. Many readers will notice that it is substantially shorter than it was previously. There are several reasons for this:

1. The history of IPA was a lengthy discussion without a clear narrative structure. It often digressed in insignificant details. Bear in mind that most readers, to find this article useful, will not benefit from a vivid three sentence description of what it would be like to be a cask of ale on the voyage to India in 1792.
2. Much of the information, despite long standing complaints was uncited.
3. Much of the information, despite belonging to common lore about IPA, is not verified by reliable sources. Moreover, some of that lore is contested.
4. Even worse, some of that lore is clearly contradicted in authoritative sources and no authoritative source seems to object. That is, for all we can tell, that lore is simply false.
5. Some of it wasn't even about IPA. Beer brewed in india and india pale ale share nothing except five letters of the alpha bet, so let's not have three paragraphs about beer and breweries in india and elsewhere that are not making IPA or descendants thereof.

This history section need not be as short as it is. If a piece of information was removed that you feel was very important, please edit, and please add information not previously present. However, bear in mind two points:

• History does not belong to "common knowledge" and claims about the history of this subject should be asserted with an appropriate citation. The present version, Sept. 23 2008, was constructed with an eye to three different sources, so if a favorite piece of "common knowledge" about IPA doesn't appear, it may be because that knowledge is actually a myth.
• Preserve a good narrative structure that makes important points stand out and less important ones take a back seat. philosofool

(talk) 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently undid a revision that suggested that other beers could not be successfully exported to India. It was uncited and I have found no reliable source that verifies the claim, which seems mostly to have evolved form legends printed on brewpub menus. If there is a reliable source for claims about IPA's unique ability to survive exportation to india, let's talk about it here. philosofool (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

IBUs: the peeing contest

OK, let's hash this out here now, just so it's on record. What should or shouldn't be in the article regarding IBU superlatives? What distinctions should be regarded (calculated from hop schedule? measured by hplc or other means? anything beyond limits of perception)? I ask this now, not only because it's being disputed, but also because doubtless it will be disputed again. Dunkelweizen (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IBU numbers aren't very informative. IBU is 1 part per million (or is it billion) isomerized alpha acid in beer. It is correlated with bitterness, but the perception of isoalpha acids is greatly affected by the original gravity, percent attenuation, malt flavors, presence of hop essential oils and the type of alpha acid in question. It is also affected by abv, esters and other flavor components. Note that hops flavors are not the result of isomerized acids, and what many people think is bitterness as measured by IBUs is actually something else, viz. essential oils and other flavor compounds in hops. Since IBUs are only somewhat informative about a beer, I think that this article should discuss them exactly to the same degree that an article on pilsner, porter, hefe weizen or any other beer article should. To do otherwise gives the impression that IBUs are somehow important to IPA in a way that they are not in other beers. Attention to bitterness is an element of every style, IPAs merely happen to be at one extreme. If there's a well documented sociological phenomenon surrounding IPA and IBUs, that would merit one cited sentence in the article that would not be important in another beer article. philosofool (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source other than BA, which lists its actual IBU at 112? A 200 IBU beer is huge and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.103.165 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I could possibly dig one up, but this "FWeezle" character (are you still there?) really ought to put one forward if she or he can. I've saw this "most extreme" section go through a few questionable changes back in June, and I can see now that it deserves some attention. If your concern is that a calculated IBU is irrelevant, I can sympathize with your position (especially since factors like solubility can keep a brewer from getting as much hop oil into a beer as he or she might like, depending on the recipe). But on the face of it, to write about a calculated IBU--and to be clear in doing so--is not dishonest or confusing at all. To my mind, the most problematic part of the "which beer is the most bitter" question is that the human sensory threshold (around 100 IBUs? I could research this) prevents these extremely bitter beers from tasting any bitterer than that threshold level. The result is that a beer with a kazillion IBUs and a beer with two kazillian IBUs will taste equally bitter, all other things remaining the same. This leads me to wonder--and to ask--whether and how it might be valuable to talk about IPAs with very high IPUs. Should any beers be named at all, then? Dunkelweizen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But It's So Delicious!

How can this long article omit the crucial fact that IPA's are blow-your-socks-off delicious? A bit of an oversight don't you think?

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.232.1.1 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For as long as that statement remains a subjective statement of opinion rather than an objective fact. Velkyal (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And I would actually debate the claim! Good IPA is good, but bad IPA is bad. Higher gravity increases the chances of perceptible higher alcohols, and you find that a lot in some commmercial examples of IPA. I won't name names. It's pretty nasty if you ask me. philosofool (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Usefulness of Examples

I'm gonna say a bunch of stuff that's in a really authoritative voice, rather than trying quality it. Respond. There're dozens of examples in this article and we need to figure out whether that's really helping our readers.

The use of lots of examples is common in beer pages in wikipedia. This is perceived as informative, but I don't think that it always or even usually is. Some of the problems with examples include:

• Examples are often only helpful to people familiar with them. If I tell you "the taste of stone pale as is hoppy" that's very helpful if you know what stone pale ale tastes like.
• Examples may give the appearance that a particular exemplar is especially important. When the examplar is especially important, that may be a good thing; when the exemplar is not especially important, it is not a good thing.
• Examples tend to blossom more exemplifying. Articles can quickly become a litany of examples.
• The selection of examples often results from the experiences of the editor that offers them. Although not necessarily a pernicious case of such a thing, examples often represent POV.

I think that this article has problems with too many examples, and many of that is subject to the sorts of criticisms above. Remember that the goal of this article is not to implicitly recommend to the readers that they try any particular IPA, nor even that they taste IPA in general: such behavior is POV, as it implicitly suggests that certain courses of action are good. Selecting a favorite IPA to tell the reader about is often inappropriate, even if what you say about it is true.

In case you're wondering how I got on this topic: I'm a pretty knowledgeable guy when it comes to things beer and there are several example in this article that didn't help me understand the topic in the slightest. philosofool (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All good ideas. I may begin to respond in a couple days--my participation here is really procrastinating about work I should be doing. One idea: we could impose an arbitrary example limit, either total or by nation of origin. We did this with the barley wine article, if I recall correctly. Dunkelweizen (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion that we've had a number of times (not only once). I was especially bothered by the barley wine article (I'm pretty sure you are correct) because we had this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Archive3#Number_of_Examples_in_Articles already in 2007 and there was consensus on the number 4 for the country of origin and 3 for other countries. I don't quite understand why we need to keep agreeing to different agreements when there is already a perfectly good one in place. As has been said before: these long lists of beer names are helping no one. Personally, I think Silktork's idea to put the examples in the text is the best solution because that will discourage brewers and their friends from just adding their name to the list, as they do now. Mikebe (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my view is actually stronger than these. The basic rule should be Include only examples that will help a reader unfamiliar with the subject. After that, examples should meet 4 out of 5 of the following constraints (originally proposed in the archieve Mikebe links above.)

• well-established -- ideally, produced for as long as the style has existed
• available -- should be in general production today
• recognized -- by major awards and citeable beer journalists (e.g. Roger Protz, Michael Jackson)
• typical -- should represent the style in itself, not an unusual or novel intepretation
• notable in itself -- perhaps redundant, but if a beer is worth pointing to and saying "this is what a pale ale ought to be" then we should be able to say something in particular about the beer.

I can't actually think of very many examples that will be helpful to a reader, unless they're simply offering a recommendation, which would be POV and hence inappropriate. Furthermore, I think there's a POV problem with offering examples: you can't offer all the examples that fit the above criteria (too many) but the selection of just one would seem to give undue weight to a particular representative. philosofool (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback from Zythophile

Writer/blogger Martyn Cornell posted some suggestions about this article on one of his posts' comment pages:

Well, it’s better now than it was, but there are still misunderstandings. Terry Foster’s book is - well - not the most accurate source. There’s no evidence I know of to say when Hodgson first began selling beer for export to India, and he wasn’t doing it himself anyway, it was the independent East India Company ship’s captains who bought the beer off him. Hodgson’s beer only had about half the Indian beer trade in 1800. The “exact reasons” why the Burton brewers got into the India trade aren’t a mystery at all - see both my Beer: the Story of the Pint and Amber Gold and Black for what happened. I don’t know where the idea that “many brewers dropped the term “India” in the late 19th century” comes from - “India Pale Ale” continued to be a part of the line-up of pale bitter ales for many, perhaps most brewers. “Hodgson’s style of brewing is probably responsible for term India Pale Ale.” - no - it was called India Pale Ale because it was “pale ale as prepared for India”. “His beer was lower in alcohol than most beer brewed in his day” - no it wasn’t, it was probably around or slightly higher than the average. “… a greater proportion of the wort was fermented” - well, it would have been drier than mild ale, but not necessarily drier than aged porter or stout .. “and the beer was strongly hopped.” That’s true, but so were other beers meant to be aged. Hope that’s helpful!

We can do what we want with this, but I thought it might be helpful. Dunkelweizen (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Unfortunately, we're in a difficult situation regarding sources: quite simply, we have some that are conflicting. I suspect that Mr. Cornell's is more authoritative. I am going to buy the book and I will do my best to make this article reflect it's content in a way that does justice to the "alternative views." philosofool (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been saying here for a long time that the American homebrewing guide series provide very unreliable information about European beers. Alas, to very little avail. Philosofool, I am very happy to read that you are now beginning to understand this problem and will take the correct step of using Martyn Cornell's book. I had posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India_Pale_Ale&diff=prev&oldid=240499877

the suggestion that you use Ron Pattinson's articles about IPA which include all information on the source material. Regrettably, you chose not to use that. I would also like to point out that "alternative views" is not relevant here: these are historical facts and the issue is not one of "view", it is one of reliability and authority. Again, I think you are taking the right step and hope that this will become the rule and not an exception. Thanks. Mikebe (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia policy frowns on the use of self-published sources, WP:SPS. And when two published sources contradict one another, it is not wikipedia policy for the editors simply to pick the one that they prefer. Because Mr. Cornell is a published author in this field, it is acceptable to use his work, but wikipedia policy warns against it. I am doing my best to see what in Mr. Cornell's work is sufficiently well-documented that it can be regarded as a scholarly authority on this topic, but since there are no references or explicit citations in much of it, that may be difficult to do. I'm hoping that he will publish and thereby certify this work. By the way, Foster's book is much in accord in several respects with Mr. Cornell's book. (By the way, Mr. Foster is British.) philosofool (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned reply. As I have said now twice before, please look at the URL I gave you to Ron Pattinson's site. None of his sources are self-published, he only reports what he has found in books, most frequently written during the period he is describing. At that time (18-20th centuries) I doubt self-publishing existed. Secondly, as I have said to you before, brewing guides are not valid on historical events unless the author is also recognised as a historical authority. The fact that Foster is also British, unfortunately, is no guarantee that he is an authority on British beer history and, for a further example of that, Horst Dornbusch, who has also written brewing guides, also makes serious mistakes about German beer, his area of "authority." It seems to me it is always preferable to look first to local sources in the subject before looking at foreign sources. Wouldn't you agree? Mikebe (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebe (talk • contribs)

So are you suggesting we use Ron's sources as primary sources for this article? That makes sense. But we would have to be careful to avoid WP:OR in our use of those sources. It's extremely important that we proceed as defensibly as possible. There are plenty of misinformed, stubborn Wikipedians who will challenge anything they don't already believe, so revisions of this article should be made on as solid a foundation as can be managed. Dunkelweizen (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkelweizen (talk • contribs)

(There seems to be something wrong with the SineBot, but that's a different discussion.) Looking at Ron's IPA articles, I see the following sources: “Scottish Ale Brewer” (by W.H. Roberts, Edinburgh, 1847, pages 171 and 173), "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, pages 60-61, original brewing log 4 february 1839 and Whitbread brewing logs 1933. This was just a quick scan. Keep in mind this is mainly just data. Someone needs to go through and pick out the relevant parts and put it together. I also found this: http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/beerale.htm#loftusi This is a just a scan of several pages from the Loftus book. Mikebe (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)