From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Beer (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reversion by User:Mikebe[edit]

User:Mikebe reverted my insertion of the 'citation needed' template and left a typically uncivil note on my usertalk page inviting me to "look up the meaning of the word 'references'." It was clear from my edit, however, that what I requested a reference for was the contention, which Mikebe has ensconced in the article, that homebrewing organizations have been spreading misinformation about Quadrupel. I'm guessing that Mikebe's citation --- which lacks a page number --- of a Dutch-language book does not sufficiently back up his typically contentious claim. As is usual with this user, edit warring, incivility, personal attacks as well as the insertion of POV material into articles are the rule. — goethean 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I hope you're happy now. Mikebe 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from you insisting on falsely presenting a difference of opinion as homebrewers spreading "misinformation", everything is just peachy. Also, (again) you've got no page number for the Dutch-language book. You can't really cite an entire book. — goethean 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Falsely"? I've got documentation, so how is it false? However, I will offer a compromise: if you nominate this article for deletion, I will support you. This beer is not worth an article. Mikebe 08:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about deletion. There are several beers called Quadrupels in the US and because of this I think the word is significant, but not any more significant than what was listed. I think this is an interesting subject about how The US hijacks the traditions and customs of other nations or groups and completely bastardizes it for public consumption. This is the idea I was trying to put forth in my version of the article. I actually really liked the stuff you put in there. The parts I didn't change that is. I don't know why you deleted your own content.Beakerboy 11:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am happy that you seem to understand why nations/cultures feel victimised (and angry) by the US commercialisation of our culture. What is especially angering (is that a word?) here is that US brewers are commericalising something that does not exist in Belgium, but they are nevertheless using the lie that it is Belgian in order to increase the commercial appeal of their product! The result is that Belgium gets no benefit from this, but the American brewers do, and Americans who read this article may come to Belgium and ask for a "quadrupel" which will do nothing but put a look of confusion on a Belgian's face. This article is to no one's benefit other than a few American brewers. I don't think WP should be writing articles in support of a small commerical group. Mikebe 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ommegang brewery produces what they call a Quadrupel and the brewmaster there is the first American brewmaster knighted by Belgian brewer's guild. Ommegang is one of the premier brewers of Belgian inspired beer in America. Personally, I usually drink the real Belgian beer, but everything I've had from Ommegang is top notch. Tim Webb has even written that Belgian inspired beer produced in America is as good as anything made in Belgium.
You should be slightly happy about US beer consumers liking and appreciating Belgian beer enough that it inspires many top breweries (Although co-opting might be more accurate in this case). When I was in England all I saw from America was Coors. An article like this provides information as to where the line is between what is truely Belgian and what is Belgian-inspired.
I think the article in it's current form is well balanced. It states that the style in its generic sense (versus brand name sense) is soley American and there is a description about the conflict without ignoring that such a conflict exists.
On a side note, I was looking at your user contributions to get an idea of the articles you have diputes in, and I looked at the Imperial Stout article. I agree with you that there should not be an info box with original gravity, final gravity, and attenuation numbers. A seperate article section might be a good place for this, but not an info box. This is the first place a visitor to the article will look, and the words and values are meaningless to them, and disputable at best.Beakerboy 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to merging the article with Belgian beer. — goethean 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I second that. I think the information is important and this would be a good place to see it.Beakerboy 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Which article? Mikebe 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since no one is responding, I assume it is this article. This article violates WP:NPOV Anglo-American focus. It is not valid in an international setting. Mikebe 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How is it Anglo-American focus when it discusses both American and Belgian opinions on the subject? In fact, there is more content related to the Begian oposition to the American use of this as a style description than anything else. I'd say this makes it balanced. Mike, explain how you disagree. Is it just that this article exists? If this is the case, does any article about the American Civil War automatically suffer from the same Anglo-American focus problem and therefore not be considered valid? I'm trying to understand what the problem is?Beakerboy 23:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks, Beakerboy, for keeping this on a friendly level. Secondly, this is actually the second time exactly the same thing has happened: the BJCP has mis-identified a Belgian beer "style" and someone has written an article about it. Like last time, I protested, but it stayed. I've been away for several months, and I see that it has now been removed. It was called "Belgian Dark Strong Ale". It does not exist in Belgium and I am glad to say, it no longer exists on WP. I hope this article will be removed too and this situation will stop repeating itself.
The situation with quadrupel is even worse. First by writing the name in Dutch, not English, it suggests that this is really a Belgian style. Next, I do not completely agree with you that the BJCP does not consider it a style. First of all, it is in style category "Belgian specialty ale". And here is what they say about it: "This is a catch-all category for any Belgian-style beer not fitting any other Belgian style category. The category can be used for clones of specific beers (e.g., Orval, La Chouffe); to produce a beer fitting a broader style that doesn't have its own category (e.g., Belgian-style barleywines, Trappist Enkels and Quadrupels, Belgian spiced Christmas-type beers, etc.)..." So, they call it a "Trappist Quadrupel." Can we agree that there is no such thing as a "Trappist Quadrupel"? And can we also agree that it is not a "Belgian specialty ale"?
If American brewers want to make up a beer style, I have no problem with it as long as it is honest. However, by using Dutch spelling, calling it a "Trappist" beer and claiming to be in Belgian beer style, they are doing nothing but taking advantage of a cultural situation (American interest in Belgian beer) for commerical gain (not the BJCP, but the brewers). Furthermore, as I see it, it violates Anglo-American focus by describing something that is "fact" only in America.Mikebe 09:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually we must agree that there IS a Trappist Quadrupel, La Trappe. We also can say that La Trappe themselves considers it a style as they label it (La Trappe Quadrupel) the same way they label their Trippel (La Trappe Trippel), Dubbel(La Trappe Dubbel), and Bock. And I have a question for you, actually two questions. At Chimay, they have an enkel(brown), dubbel(red), trippel(white), and blue, which is what? In Belgium why doesn't the progression naturally follow through to Quadrupel like it does at La Trappe? We both agree there are some problems with the BJCP guidelines, but the way I see this section is that Quadrupel is like Orval, there's no other beer in the world like it. That's why it's listed in the specialty category. I'm not a member so I don't know who to call to get clarification on this.
Because the article contains information that is a fact in only one contry does not mean it's invalid. One can still state "In the United Kingdom, The Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one." Because it's true everywhere that "In the UK, the Beatles...", just like it's true EVERYWHERE that "commercial brewers within the United States do use Quadrupel or Quad to refer to..."
I can see why you would have reservations about merging the article into Belgian Beer with only one Dutch example which we can agee upon as being a Quadrupel.Beakerboy 11:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't follow that at all. Why do you have the impression that because La Trappe named their beer Quadrupel that means that they are naming a new style? Think of Chimay Blue. Does that means that "Trappist Blue" is now a beer type? Or Rochefort 10 - there is now a "Trappist 10"? This is simply a beer name, like Duvel or Piraat, for example. On their site, for the Quadrupel they write: "Het zwaarste bier van La Trappe met een prachtige amberkleur. De warme smaak is vol en mild. Een beetje zoet en aangenaam bitter. Een uniek bier dat zelfs op jaartal te rusten wordt gelegd in de kelders van de abdij voor een verdere rijping. La Trappe Quadrupel heeft 10% alcohol." Translation: The strongest beer from La Trappe has an amber colour. The warm taste is full and mild. A bit sweet and agreeably bitter. A unique beer that is layed in the cellar of the abbey for years in order to mature more. La Trappe Quadrupel has 10% alcohol.
Where did you read there that they were calling it a beer type or a style? Furthermore, why is Rochefore 10 not called a Quadrupel since it has even more alocohol than La Trappe? Or Westvleteren? Because a brewery calls its beer "Charles" does not mean than Charles is the name of a beer type or style.
Let me quote to you someone who probably knows more about Belgian beer than either one of us: Tim Webb. In his "Good Beer Guide to Belgium & Holland" (ISBN 1-85249-174-4) he writes on page 52: "There is no beer style called Trappist. The term "Trappist Beer" is a designation of the brewery of origin." Here is his description of the La Trappe Quadrupel (page 123): "A thick, sweet, bitter chestnut coloured winter barley wine, that has tended to vary mainly in quality, from year to year."
For your questions about Chimay, they make three beers: 7, 8 and 9% alcohol. Chimay does not apply "style" names to their beers. Well, that's not completely true, the White is now called the Triple. Here's Webb's description of the 9% Chimay (page 78): "Once a huge, dark, strikingly serious monastic special brew that has become a pretentious pastiche of its old self." Here's Chimay's site: You can look for yourself and see what they call their beers.
Something that American home-brewers seem to have a lot of trouble understanding is that beer "styles" in the BJCP sense, don't exist in Europe. Not in the UK, not in Belgium, not in the Netherlands, not in Germany and not in the Tschech Republic. We usually refer to the beers by name or by type. I have never ever heard anyone refer to style (until I came here).
I don't understand how your analogies are relevant to this situation. Try this: country A sees something in country B and misunderstands what it is. Country A then publishes this misunderstanding. So, in all other countries, this misunderstanding is seen as a misunderstanding and is not valid. I hope that helps.
I see you've ignored my point about this being the second time that a fictional BJCP definition is being disputed and that the first one is already gone. Why not just rely on precedent? It is fiction that only in America, but some people, is believed. Mikebe 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A quick google search reveals that several American breweries make belgian-style beers that they call 'quadrupels': New Glarus[1], Weyerbacher[2], Avery [3]. And Allagash make a very strong beer which they suggestively call "Four".[4]. Regardless of User:Mikebe's personal crusade, "Quadrupel" is evidently a term that some people use to refer to certain products. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting on these facts. If User:Mikebe disagrees, he should nominate this article for deletion. Purists will always be frustrated by changes; nothing any of us can do will change that fact. — goethean 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I can think of several beers called "Blue" - Labbatt's, Chimay and Pripp's - does this make Blue a style?Patto1ro 08:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As an outsider to this conservation, it may be useful to know that this article educated me concerning the use of the term "quadrupel". I am relatively new to the world of Belgian beer (only about a year of tasting experience), and before today I assumed that there was, in fact, a specific style, and the name was used by more than one brewery. I would still be in the dark if this article was deleted, and I think it does more to keep people of all countries, but specifically Americans, aware of this issue. Mikebe, while I completely understand your frustration concerning the bastardization of this term and its misuse and misrepresentation by American breweries, the problem will be perpetuated if information does not exist to make curious beer nuts like myself aware. I would have embarrassed myself in Belgian had I not read this, so I appreciate its existence as an educational, NPOV article.--Ortsacul 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This article did not educate you -- it mis-educated you. It gives the impression that this is important information. This is not important information at all. It is simply an explanation of a misunderstanding by an American homebrewing organisation. Mikebe 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Muikebe:'Beer "styles" in the BJCP sense, don't exist in Europe. Not in the UK, not in Belgium, not in the Netherlands, not in Germany and not in the Tschech Republic'.
Of course, all these countries do have styles.1Z 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, a voice of reason. Miekbe, I do sort of sympathize with your point about quads being a new and largely American invention; in the same breath, nearly ALL beer styles are new and largely American inventions. Beer style designations are mostly arbitrary. Try asking a monk at St. Sixtus what Westy 12 is-- he'll tell you it's beer or ale or dark ale or dark ale brewed at an original gravity of 12º plato. What he won't tell you is that it's a quad or a Belgian strong dark ale or anything else that might help you classify it and relate it to other similar beers you might also like if you like Westy 12.
Styles allow us to state our preferences more accurately, and to judge beers by fairer standards. Without them, we'd be forced to make vague comparisons (dunkelweizens and imperial stouts are both "dark ales", after all) or totally nonsensical ones (what the hell does "better" mean when you're comparing an American Double IPA to a Saison?) Quadrupel is as good a style descriptor as any for Abts, 12s, 10s, and the billion other less prescise but more "culturally-accurate" names for beers that act like Rochefort 10. I'd rather tick off a few touchy Belgians than have to tiptoe around, asking for "you know, those dark beers, the ones from Belgium, like Westy 12 only I can buy them places other than Westvleteren"; if I were them I'd be too proud of the beer to care much about what American homebrewers decided to call it.-- Kajerm 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not wishing to give a beer a type or style, the problem is the random names assigned by American homebrewers. In this case here, there is a beer type that has been in existance for centuries and is a perfectly valid type to describe the beers here. It is called barley wine. Barley wine is a type of beer recognised in Belgium and throughout the world. Quadrupel is a made-up style invented by American home brewers. Which do you think is more useful? Mikebe 07:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Barley wine is a style designation that has been as thoroughly bastardized as Quadrupel in its own way. Look at J.W. Lees and Bigfoot and tell me if they are really the same style of beer. Maybe you will say (reasonably) that English and American barley wines represent two different styles of beer, like English and American pale ales or IPAs. Fair enough, but then tell me the difference between Founders Devil Dancer (a 14% ABV "Triple IPA") and a barley wine? It seems to me that Barley wine, as a style, is defined entirely by ABV. This is different from every other style of beer (with the exception of American malt liquor), which has a relatively characteristic flavor profile, appearance, and mouthfeel. Ask yourself, outside of alcohol content (and the properties it imparts), does Rochefort 10 much anything in common at all with Thomas Hardy's? And if not, are you suggesting we invent a style called "Belgian barley wine"? If so, do you think anyone at St. Sixtus or Rochefort or Konigshoeven has actually referred to their own beer that way?
On an unrelated note, I've looked into your history a bit, and I'd like to think that you'd be above carrying whatever vendetta you seem to have against BJCP onto Wikipedia. I think a lot of what they do is pretentious arbitrary wanking, but they have a acquired a position of authority that no amount of wiki-bile and no number if retroactively-justified deletion requests will undo. Please, let's drop the politics and just write articles about beer. After all, no matter what the hell we call it, I think we all can agree that Westy 12 tastes good. --Kajerm
Most beer styles are NOT modern American inventions. At least not if you discount ones that begin with Double, Imperial or American.Patto1ro 10:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Not the styles themselves, no, but the particular system and many of the names they have been given.-- Kajerm 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to quote some examples? (Remember ones that just have Double, Imperial or American nailed on the front don't count.) People like the BJCP have made up ridiculously restricted (and ill-fitting) strightjackets for existing European styles. Germany, Britain and the Czech Republic already had their own systems for classifying beers. Various American groups just laid their own (mismatching) framework on top of these. I think that the systems of classification used in the country where a beer is breweed (and primarily consumed) should take preference to those arbitrarily imposed from outside.Patto1ro 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Beer is slightly younger than dirt and the beetle. Any attempt to systematically categorize it is going to have shortcomings. You and Mikebe favor tradition. BJCP (rather necessarily) favors clarity and methodicity, even where bright lines do not actually exist in the countries of origin. The newer style designations are more comprehensive, but less traditional. The problem with the older way is that it is often very imprecise. For a beer drinker or a beer historian, this is fine and appropriate. For a beer judge or a beer reviewer, this creates problems. The BJCP style designations were created to solve the very specific problems of the BJCP. They are better for some things and worse for others. --Kajerm 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Beer competitions are an irrelevance outside the United States. To classify beer purely for competition purposes, is crazy for ordinary consumers. I have no problem with the BJCP having specifications for use in their competitions. It's the application of these to describe beer in the wider world that is unhelpful. They do not reflect the real situation.Patto1ro 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get that from? CAMRA holds a categorized beer competion every year.1Z 22:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite true, CAMRA does hold an annual competition at the GBBF. It has a massive seven categories and the definitions for each are pretty loose. No brewer brews beers specifically to fit in with the specifications, because there's no need to. Contrast that with the Great American Beer Festival where there were 69 categories in 2006.
Here's an example of a CAMRA category (Pale Ale) definition:
"India Pale Ale changed the face of brewing early in the 19th century. The new technologies of the Industrial Revolution enabled brewers to use pale malts to fashion beers that were genuinely golden or pale bronze in colour. First brewed in London and Burton-on-Trent for the colonial market, IPAs were strong in alcohol and high in hops: the preservative character of the hops helped keep the beers in good condition during long sea journeys. Beers with less alcohol and hops were developed for the domestic market and were known as Pale Ale. Today Pale Ale is usually a bottled version of Bitter, though historically the styles are different. Marston’s Pedigree is an example of Burton Pale Ale, not Bitter, while the same brewery’s Old Empire is a fascinating interpretation of a Victorian IPA. So-called IPAs with strengths of around 3.5% are not true to style. Look for juicy malt, citrus fruit and a big spicy, peppery bitter hop character, with strengths of 4% upwards."
Now see how the Brewers' Association defines Pale Ale:
"Classic English-Style Pale Ale
Classic English pale ales are golden to copper colored and display earthy, herbal English-variety hop character. Note that “earthy, herbal English-variety hop character” is the perceived end, but may be a result of the skillful use of hops of other national origins. Medium to high hop bitterness, flavor, and aroma should be evident. This medium-bodied pale ale has low to medium malt flavor and aroma. Low caramel character is allowable. Fruity-ester flavors and aromas are moderate to strong. Chill haze may be in evidence only at very cold temperatures. The absence of diacetyl is desirable, though, diacetyl (butterscotch character) is acceptable and characteristic when at very low levels.
Original Gravity (ºPlato): 1.040-1.056 (10-14 ºPlato)
Apparent Extract/Final Gravity (ºPlato): 1.008-1.016 (2-4 ºPlato)
Alcohol by Weight (Volume): 3.5-4.2% (4.5-5.5%)
Bitterness (IBU): 20-40
Color SRM (EBC): 5 - 14 (10-28 EBC)"
The Brewers' Association also has separate categories for English-Style India Pale Ale, American-Style Pale Ale and American-Style India Pale Ale. At the GBBG Pale Ales don't even have thier own category, being lumped in with Bitter.
In the States it's not uncommon for brewes to specifically tailor beers to fit the competition guidelines to give themselves a better chabce of winning a prize. I have never heard of this occurring in Britain.
I know of nowhere outside North America where competitions are held with dozens of categories or where competition guidelines influence brewers recipes. Or for that matter, where consumers really give a toss about competition results.Patto1ro 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what the point of this is. The sweeping claim that there is no such things as a beer style is not being defended by these comments. And if USians and Euros have different approaches, both should be reflected. 1Z 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial sources[edit]

There is no absolute prohibition on commercial sources

"Material published by a trading organisation is a view of how that organisation looks on itself however it will also have a marketing component and may lack neutrality. If this material is used it should carry a caveat to indicate this risk and should be corroborated with independent reporting if possible".[5]

Clearly the mere fact that a certain product is produced by a certain company is not POV. Indeed, what better way to establish the existence of a product that a reference to its manufacturer. 1Z 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." From WP:RS. No one questions that Quadrupel is a brand name. And Beeradvocate is precisely the source that fails to meet the above requirement. It is not reliable, has no fact-checking and there is no editorial oversight. Sorry. Mikebe 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two different things. I think you're ignoring that fact to suit your own purposes.-- Kajerm 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There were already several refs supporting the existence of beers called Quadruplel in the US. 1Z 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, no one questions that Quadrupel is a brand name. However, you have yet to provide evidence that it is a beer style -- in the US or Belgium or anywhere else. Mikebe 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim that there is not such a thing as a beer style. I couldn't possible prove it to your satisfaction. 1Z 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. And where did I claim that? 2. You can't prove it is a style because it isn't. Please remove it from articles where you've used it. Thanks. Mikebe 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Muikebe:'Beer "styles" in the BJCP sense, don't exist in Europe. Not in the UK, not in Belgium, not in the Netherlands, not in Germany and not in the Tschech Republic'.

1Z 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my name is not "Muikebe", second of all you still don't answer the question where I said that and thirdly, how exactly does that prove your claim that I said "there is no such thing as a beer style"? Mikebe 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your other sources: you wrote "beers stronger than Tripel exist in Belgium". Exactly how strong is a triple? If you have an answer, please provide a verifiable, reliable source. Mikebe 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimay Bleue is stronger than Chimay Tripel. Which has been pointed out to you before. 1Z 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And Westmalle Tripel at 9.5% ABV is stronger than Chimay Blue at only 9 ABV.Patto1ro 08:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And some milds are stronger than some bitters, Big deal. 1Z 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimay's Blue is stronger than their tripel. That is the point. 1Z 10:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither Rochefort nor Westvleteren make a "tripel", as you know. Therefore, their examples are invalid. This leaves you with one example. One example does not make a trend. You have also neglected to answer my question above "exactly how strong is a tripel"? Mikebe 10:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as dark tripel, then? Citation please.1Z 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Peter, you are making the claim that there are beers stronger than triples brewed by the Trappists and that these beers can be called Quadrupels. It is up to you to prove that such beers exist, not up to me to disprove it, and it is up to you to prove that these beers represent a style. So far, you have not been able to supply verifiable sources for either point. Mikebe 11:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I've removed irrelevant links. You wrote "some brewers and beer writers within the United States do use Quadrupel or Quad to refer to high alcohol beers". The sources you gave prove that three brewers use "Quadrupel" as part of the name of their beers. For the third time now: there is no dispute that a few brewers use the name. The questions remain: can you provide evidence from an authoritative source that Quadrupel is a style of beer and can you provide proof for your claim that there are several "beers stronger than tripels"? I would also be very curious why you keep bringing up barley wine, but ignoring that it is a perfectly good description of the beers you are trying to prove exist. Mikebe 12:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to write an encyclopedia article that correctly reflects the facts. The references in the article are intended to support the claims in the article, they are not supposed to be part of some debate. The current article does not make a claim about style. 1Z 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? For what purpose then is the beeradvocate link? And the rest of the article contains no facts - only your unsupported opinions. Mikebe 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Reading the article, it seems to me that the statement that some breweries use the term "quadrupel" or similar ones to refer to their beers is fairly well referenced - regardless of whether or not you consider this a "correct" use. Perhaps what we see here is a case of a trademark getting genericized (or being generic from the beginning). - Mike Rosoft 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, calm down[edit]

During the recent few days I have had a particularly heated e-mail discussion with Mikebe. He asked me to take action in this editing dispute (on his side, naturally); I have declined his request. I have previously undone his redirection of this article, because I was of the opinion that it wasn't properly merged. This was my private opinion, and is not to be taken as an "official" administrative action.

Now I:

  • Ask all users involved with this dispute to calm down;
  • Recommend you not to make major changes to the article, such as redirecting it, without consensus;
  • Remind you that polling and counting votes is not a substitute for discussion;
  • If you are unable to resolve this dispute, please consider asking an uninvolved editor for a judgement.

I have marked this article as a stub, and I do not intend to be involved with it any more. - Mike Rosoft 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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) 05:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Could Mr Pattinson explain why the links are irrelevant? The mere presence of a link has no prejudice with regard to any ideoliogical axe-grinding. A "see also" link could be a "contrast" as much as a "compare". 1Z (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think explaining why they are relevant is more, well, relevant. This is the page of a brand of beer, not a beer style. What does La Trappe Quadrupel particularly have in common with Tripel? Yes, Koningshoeven brews a Tripel. But then I could argue there should be a link to Pilsener, as that's been a brand of the brewery at various times. Or Bock, because they brew one of those, too. And if you don't mind me asking, how do you know my name and why are you using it?Patto1ro (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I generally call people by their names.
Whether Q. is a style or not is open to debate. Removing material becuase you believe it not to be style is therefore POV.
The word is clearly related to Dubbel and Tripel even if as a mere pun. (cf Triple bock). Inclusion of link does not say anything about what the relationship is supposedto be.
You have been deleting the link to Barley Wine, too.
And La Trappe is not the only brewery to use the term.
For heaven's sake, let the readers make up their own minds.

1Z (talk)

Peter, believe whatever you like but the fact is that the Koningshoeven Quadrupel has as much relation to tripel or dubbel as as the Pope has to UEFA. Mikebe (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So there is not brewery anywhere that produces a dubbel, a tripel, and a quadrupel? THat's a fact is it? 1Z (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one. And that IS a fact. Mikebe (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that brews a Tripeland a quad: Weyerbacher Brewing Company

here's another Boulevard Brewing Comapny

And another Midnight Sun 'Venus'

So, no, it isn't a fact.1Z (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And here's a blog posting giving a sane and 'balanced (phew!) discussion of the issue:


1Z (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Webbo relates Quadrupel and "Grand Cru" in the GBGtB. Considers Quad somewhat an americanism. 1Z (talk)

Quad = a marketing term. Full stop. Mikebe (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly a personal WP:POV. I am not in personally pushing the POV that it is a genuine style or not, I am trying to write and informative article. Since you are unable to justify your editing according to the normal standards of wikipedia, and since the above material is verifiable, there is no reeason not to include it in the article. 1Z (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the article clearly states, Quadrupel is the brand name of a Dutch beer. In the Netherlands and in Belgium, that's all it means. If other people want to mis-interpret it for their own commercial purposes, that does not by itself qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mikebe (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "Quadrupel" is demonstrably not restricted to the Low countries. Calling verifiable information "misinterpretation" is POV and nothing to to do with WP editing standards. please read WP:V. 1Z (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead of claiming neutrality ('I am not in personally pushing the POV that it is a genuine style or not') and then arguing only one side, why not tell us what the connection is between Quadrupel and dubbel and tripel? Mikebe (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Obvious connection of the name

2. Breweries with doing a quad usually do a tripel as well.

1Z (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what "side" am I supposed to be arguing? The side that says articles should be informative? 1Z (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite, the side that says Quadrupel is a Trappist "beer style": Mikebe (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That was two years ago. The current article says nothing about styles, nor do my intended additions. You need to consider amendments to articles on their own merits. You are obstructing my edits based on your belief that I am trying to say something about beer styles that you disagree with, but is in fact only your belief. My edits stand up by wikipedian standards. Please do not revet any more of my edits unless you can justify the reversion by a correct appeal to editing guidelines, and not just according the unjusitfied assumption that I am smuglging in a POV. 1Z (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

user:SilkTork on Quadrupel[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately the problem is more the editor than the specific issue. He has defaced many of the Belgian beer articles and then edit-warred to prevent undoing, etc., etc. He claims to know Belgian beer, but he doesn't. He needs to be banned from the beer articles. Mikebe (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban is something that the ArbCom considers. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. And the ArbCom would require evidence of an attempt to resolve the issue. The first steps in resolving the issue are negotiations with the other editor(s) to agree the best way forward. Negotiations are not edit wars and reverts and personal attacks, but an attempt to understand the viewpoint of the other editor. If negotiations break down, or don't make progress, then the next step is Mediation. There has been some discussion already, and it appears that no progress is being made, so Mediation is the next step. On the whole we don't block or ban editors because another editor disagrees with them. Disagreements are the backbone of Wikipedia. I feel that articles which have been through debate and negotiation by editors with differing viewpoints tend to be more balanced. And what we wish to produce is balanced articles well supported by reliable sources.

My own view on the issue is that Quadrupel is a brand name used by several breweries. The first use of the term appears to be by Koningshoeven. The brand name is being used to loosely describe a strong ale in the Belgian style, along with the term Abt. This is much the same as ESB was a brand name used for a Premium Ale in the UK by various breweries, and when Fullers ESB was exported to the USA, the term ESB was used in place of Premium Ale. The whole nature of "beer styles" is difficult as there is nothing officially prescribed. Articles which discuss beer styles need to be flexible and accept that with a few exceptions, there is nothing definitive. What needs to be done is to collect the available material on the subject and use that in the articles. It is not helpful to anyone for people to be making unsourced statements on this subject. SilkTork *YES! 14:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information[edit]

I feel that this article is missing quite some information about how a quadrupel is made and what makes it so special. AFAIK from the beer tastings I've been to, they brew the original gravity multiple times. Starting with dubbel and 2 times, over tripel with 3 times and ending in quadrupel, where they do that 4 times. Sadly, I'm not sure about that and I'm missing sources (actually hard to find on that topic). Maybe someone can help and/or correct me? Would be nice if this article gets some maintenance. --FrankyFire (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)