![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
With the entry "Currently following beers are brewed in Hoegaarden: Witbier, Das, Speciale, Grand Cru, Verboden Vrucht and Julius. As of December 2005 the brewery is threatened with closure." Does anyone have a source for the new information? Cafe Nervosa | talk
I'm confused. Is the brewery currently located in Hoegaarden or not? Eric Rosenfield 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
" .. as long as the third gulp completes the pint. Note: this assumes a glass size of 25 cl..." This needs clarification. You can't fit a pint into a 25cl (or even a 50 cl) glass. Maproom 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What seems to be the problem with the "tradition" section... Why was it removed? David Rogers ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what the implements are in the logo? One looks like a bishop's crook, but what's the other? 209.167.21.34 ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll answer my own question: from http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/celis.html: two overlapping shields, one with the hand of a Bishop holding a Staff (Crosier), and the other with a hand holding a Mashing Paddle. ("Moutstok" (literally ("Malt Stick")) 209.167.21.34 ( talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"Hoegaarden is known for its superior refreshment" this doesn't sound neutral or citable to me 72.12.106.247 ( talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This section keeps being removed. The purpose of this section is to include information about the ingredients, nutritional value and packaging and whether it is suitable for vegetarians/coleiacs etc. This is the section so far: [4]
This keeps being removed on the grounds it is 'irrelevant'. How exactly does the editor that removes it qualify the argument that information about the products that the brewery produce is 'irrelevant'. Surely all verified information about the product, especially its ingredients, are relevant on an article about the products and the company that makes them? Product information is often included on many other article pages so why is it a no-no on a brewer article? Some questions for the editor to consider:
No explanation has been given, just the constant removal of cited information about the products that the company produces. I would be very grateful if the editor in question would explain his actions here rather than constantly removing the content. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think splitting the article into separate business/product articles along the lines of the pepsi co/pepsi articles resolves the conflict. Please let me know what you think. Is this a satisfactory solution to everyone? Betty Logan ( talk) 13:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no conflict. You came, unasked, and put in what is best irrelevant information and what is worst, spam. You reverted every edit that anyone made for two days. You have acted in a disruptive and uncivil way. I am not at all satisfied with what you have done and will revert it. DO NOT REVERT. If you don't like it, post on the talk page. Mikebe ( talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
When you speak to me in a civil way, we can discuss. Until then, I suggest you do some reading. Mikebe ( talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia states that self-publishes sources can be used in certain cases: "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. [5] but states "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". [6]. This caveat clearly doesn't apply here.
The references I provide are legitimate in that they publish CORRESPONDENCE with the brewer or distributor themselves. This is clearly an acceptable use of a primary source as long as the information is clearly identified as a statement and not a fact: "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion unless the that specific interpretation, analysis or conclusion is explicitly stated in the primary source (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction, but a letter by the Duke of Wellington specifically analyzing the Battle of Waterloo would be a reliable source for a statement as to his analysis of that battle)." [7]
I have included references from two such websites with independent correspondence. There is no legiitmate reason to believe the information supplied is inaccurate or falsified. The source clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for eligibility in the absence of a secondary source from a journal or news publication. If you feel that the sources are insufficient then feel free to add a 'fact' flag to try and strengthen the reference, but ultimately the information added does not pose a legal threat to Wikepedia from the brewery, so given that the information specifically addresses the products, and the references quotes direct correspondence I see no argument to remove the section on the grounds that it is 'unsafe'.
Betty Logan ( talk) 04:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've raised an AfD on Hoegaarden products as I don't think that is the way to handle disputes. dougweller ( talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Doug, where should product information about Hoegaarden products be put then? Do we have them on this article or a separate one. I have asked this question a million times now, but WHERE should information about Hoegaarden beers be put? If you are going to object to what action has been taken then you could at least provide an alternative solution. Are we going to have a Product information section for ingredients, nutrition etc on this article or do we go the Pepsi route and split the article? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has nothing to do with the Hoegaarden brewery anymore, Betty, so would you please move this to your own talk page? Besides, how many administrators have to tell you that you are wrong before you listen to them and just move on? Mikebe ( talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice you have not responded to my question, Fram. You say there has to be an independent and reliable source that a beer's vegetarian status is notable enough to include, so I put the question to you again: if a publication such as "The Good Beer Guide" notes that a beer or beer range is suitable for vegetarians does that fulfil your criteria for the inclusion of the information in the article? Betty Logan ( talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this is relevant to a good proportion of beers including many of the mainstream ones then maybe the debate is best had in the context of the beer Wiki project. I don't fancy having this dicussion about every beer that is suitable for vegetarians. By moving the discussion over to the Beer Wikiproject page everyone involved in the articles can have their say. I've started the discussion here: Dietary information on beer and brewery articles Betty Logan ( talk) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Some editors oppose the inclusion of information about a beer's vegetarian suitability on the grounds it is not relevant, while others regard it as the type of information that is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia articles . Opinions regarding the eligibilty and suitability of such information are required. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have created an article
Vegetarian beer which would aim to sum up the information that people require on beer and vegetarianism. Almost all beers produced are free from animal products, and saying so in every article is rather redundant. It would be like going through every article in this cat -
Category:Breads and saying in each one that it is vegetarian, apart from the breads that contain honey or milk or eggs. Also it doesn't help to create a category for Vegetarian beers and then include Shepherd Neame, one of the few breweries in the world that makes non-vegetarian beer!
SilkTork *
YES!
12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was article split. Skomorokh, barbarian 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoegaarden Brewery → Hoegaarden (beer) — The title of this article does not reflect what this article is about. There is absolutely zero information about the actual brewery in this article. This article is about Hoegaarden the beer, not the brewery in which Hoegaarden beer is created. To conform with WP standards, I propose that this article be moved to Hoegaarden (beer), since there is already a Hoegaarden article on the Belgian municipality. Comments? SnottyWong talk 13:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Dutch pronunciation looks improbable enough (and inconsistent with that given at Hoegaarden) but does anyone have any actual evidence for the claimed English one, or is it just some editor's recommendation? In Britain it's always ˈhəʊgɑdən. Flapdragon ( talk) 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The page reads: "After a fire in 1985, several brewers offered their help — as is traditional in Belgium. One of these was the largest brewer in the country, called Interbrew" Interbrew didn't exist until 1988. How could they have lent money in 1985? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.142.198 ( talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
With the entry "Currently following beers are brewed in Hoegaarden: Witbier, Das, Speciale, Grand Cru, Verboden Vrucht and Julius. As of December 2005 the brewery is threatened with closure." Does anyone have a source for the new information? Cafe Nervosa | talk
I'm confused. Is the brewery currently located in Hoegaarden or not? Eric Rosenfield 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
" .. as long as the third gulp completes the pint. Note: this assumes a glass size of 25 cl..." This needs clarification. You can't fit a pint into a 25cl (or even a 50 cl) glass. Maproom 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What seems to be the problem with the "tradition" section... Why was it removed? David Rogers ( talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what the implements are in the logo? One looks like a bishop's crook, but what's the other? 209.167.21.34 ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll answer my own question: from http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/celis.html: two overlapping shields, one with the hand of a Bishop holding a Staff (Crosier), and the other with a hand holding a Mashing Paddle. ("Moutstok" (literally ("Malt Stick")) 209.167.21.34 ( talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"Hoegaarden is known for its superior refreshment" this doesn't sound neutral or citable to me 72.12.106.247 ( talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This section keeps being removed. The purpose of this section is to include information about the ingredients, nutritional value and packaging and whether it is suitable for vegetarians/coleiacs etc. This is the section so far: [4]
This keeps being removed on the grounds it is 'irrelevant'. How exactly does the editor that removes it qualify the argument that information about the products that the brewery produce is 'irrelevant'. Surely all verified information about the product, especially its ingredients, are relevant on an article about the products and the company that makes them? Product information is often included on many other article pages so why is it a no-no on a brewer article? Some questions for the editor to consider:
No explanation has been given, just the constant removal of cited information about the products that the company produces. I would be very grateful if the editor in question would explain his actions here rather than constantly removing the content. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think splitting the article into separate business/product articles along the lines of the pepsi co/pepsi articles resolves the conflict. Please let me know what you think. Is this a satisfactory solution to everyone? Betty Logan ( talk) 13:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no conflict. You came, unasked, and put in what is best irrelevant information and what is worst, spam. You reverted every edit that anyone made for two days. You have acted in a disruptive and uncivil way. I am not at all satisfied with what you have done and will revert it. DO NOT REVERT. If you don't like it, post on the talk page. Mikebe ( talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
When you speak to me in a civil way, we can discuss. Until then, I suggest you do some reading. Mikebe ( talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia states that self-publishes sources can be used in certain cases: "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. [5] but states "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". [6]. This caveat clearly doesn't apply here.
The references I provide are legitimate in that they publish CORRESPONDENCE with the brewer or distributor themselves. This is clearly an acceptable use of a primary source as long as the information is clearly identified as a statement and not a fact: "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion unless the that specific interpretation, analysis or conclusion is explicitly stated in the primary source (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction, but a letter by the Duke of Wellington specifically analyzing the Battle of Waterloo would be a reliable source for a statement as to his analysis of that battle)." [7]
I have included references from two such websites with independent correspondence. There is no legiitmate reason to believe the information supplied is inaccurate or falsified. The source clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for eligibility in the absence of a secondary source from a journal or news publication. If you feel that the sources are insufficient then feel free to add a 'fact' flag to try and strengthen the reference, but ultimately the information added does not pose a legal threat to Wikepedia from the brewery, so given that the information specifically addresses the products, and the references quotes direct correspondence I see no argument to remove the section on the grounds that it is 'unsafe'.
Betty Logan ( talk) 04:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've raised an AfD on Hoegaarden products as I don't think that is the way to handle disputes. dougweller ( talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Doug, where should product information about Hoegaarden products be put then? Do we have them on this article or a separate one. I have asked this question a million times now, but WHERE should information about Hoegaarden beers be put? If you are going to object to what action has been taken then you could at least provide an alternative solution. Are we going to have a Product information section for ingredients, nutrition etc on this article or do we go the Pepsi route and split the article? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has nothing to do with the Hoegaarden brewery anymore, Betty, so would you please move this to your own talk page? Besides, how many administrators have to tell you that you are wrong before you listen to them and just move on? Mikebe ( talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice you have not responded to my question, Fram. You say there has to be an independent and reliable source that a beer's vegetarian status is notable enough to include, so I put the question to you again: if a publication such as "The Good Beer Guide" notes that a beer or beer range is suitable for vegetarians does that fulfil your criteria for the inclusion of the information in the article? Betty Logan ( talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this is relevant to a good proportion of beers including many of the mainstream ones then maybe the debate is best had in the context of the beer Wiki project. I don't fancy having this dicussion about every beer that is suitable for vegetarians. By moving the discussion over to the Beer Wikiproject page everyone involved in the articles can have their say. I've started the discussion here: Dietary information on beer and brewery articles Betty Logan ( talk) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Some editors oppose the inclusion of information about a beer's vegetarian suitability on the grounds it is not relevant, while others regard it as the type of information that is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia articles . Opinions regarding the eligibilty and suitability of such information are required. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have created an article
Vegetarian beer which would aim to sum up the information that people require on beer and vegetarianism. Almost all beers produced are free from animal products, and saying so in every article is rather redundant. It would be like going through every article in this cat -
Category:Breads and saying in each one that it is vegetarian, apart from the breads that contain honey or milk or eggs. Also it doesn't help to create a category for Vegetarian beers and then include Shepherd Neame, one of the few breweries in the world that makes non-vegetarian beer!
SilkTork *
YES!
12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was article split. Skomorokh, barbarian 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoegaarden Brewery → Hoegaarden (beer) — The title of this article does not reflect what this article is about. There is absolutely zero information about the actual brewery in this article. This article is about Hoegaarden the beer, not the brewery in which Hoegaarden beer is created. To conform with WP standards, I propose that this article be moved to Hoegaarden (beer), since there is already a Hoegaarden article on the Belgian municipality. Comments? SnottyWong talk 13:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Dutch pronunciation looks improbable enough (and inconsistent with that given at Hoegaarden) but does anyone have any actual evidence for the claimed English one, or is it just some editor's recommendation? In Britain it's always ˈhəʊgɑdən. Flapdragon ( talk) 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The page reads: "After a fire in 1985, several brewers offered their help — as is traditional in Belgium. One of these was the largest brewer in the country, called Interbrew" Interbrew didn't exist until 1988. How could they have lent money in 1985? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.142.198 ( talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)