Talk:Beer

	This Drink related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Suggest merge

Suggest merge with Fun:Beer.--Bob^{bing up} 14:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I only wrote it because I was bored so do as thou wilt, but either remove/change the links to here or keep the redirect to fun:, to stop it appearing in wanted pages. Totnesmartin 18:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Lambic

Lambics don't taste of fruit, fruit is added to lambics (and geuzes) to make fruit beers. Lambics themselves have a slightly sour taste which I kinda like ^{— Unsigned, by: 128.240.229.68 / talk / contribs} sometime in late October, 2010.

Copper?

Why?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change, I'm off to bed in a few. Ty^talk 03:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

MIssion??? Why is this on Mission?

Oh, right, cause we are all a bunch of lushes. Nevermind. ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RW owes its very existence to beer. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you ask Ty, it appears "Chicken Wings" are equally important, though I'm rather with our dear Toast, that Cheese and Chocolate are the fuel of good witticisms. GodotGrow a vagina 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicken wings and caffeine, moving towards mixed drinks and brandy in the evening. Тy^Complaints 17:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think this should be merged into the funspace article. Same goes for wine & cider. I don't see muvh mainspace value in them & they're already sort-of covered in the relevant sections of the alcohol article. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this now. Some of the more whimsical articles in mainspace, like this one, have been around for years. Another example is goat. They exist because they are part of our history - I propose a grandfathered-in protection clause for the whimsical ones.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in two minds as well, and think some of the more popular of our frivolous articles (e.g. goat, cat) should be kept around in main. But the more stuff we keep like this, the more odd it will look to new editors, so we should try to keep grandfathered-in stuff to a minimum. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I say this article should be merged into funspace because it lacks on mission content and we should keep grandfathered-in stuff to a minimum - only the best stuff like Goat should be kept. Onion <talk> 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the "old stuff" that has been around for years that I read in the CP clean up just makes me think that many of the early editors were a bunch of drooling ED/Uncyclopedia rejects. Copperhead^Hisssssss 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh fuck off, this wiki was written by drunks before you were old enough to vote. And screw the CP stuff, that's not what I am talking about. ħuman 02:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Human is right. Ace^Moderator 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with weaseloid. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 19:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

the "rated" template

Where do I bring it to the "community"? The Saloon Bar passes by so fast I never see the same topic twice. I also never saw where the idea that any idiot could rate an article's importance with a stupid category that is all talk pages got "approved". No, this is a stupid thing and should be obliterated, with due discussion. But where? ħuman 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Forum, debate, project page, RationalWiki talk:Article rating... Flip a coin twice (or use a sticky thread at the bar). Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 04:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I have brought it up, and received no cogent answers. Just lazy people doing what lazy people do - make an easy way to make a statement, do it enough and no one can undo it. ħuman 05:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Intro

I reworded the intro because it was silly, didn't make much sense and was only tangentially related to the topic at hand (because once woman brewed lots of beer?) and didn't actually add much in the way of humour or pertainant information. Discuss. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Two Parts: (1) The context for the one sentence 'Woman's greatest invention' intro is in the History of Beer section (as you've probably noticed). If we are going to consider the women-brewed-beer line of things tangential then let us apply the removal of tangental information consistently by removing the relevant lines from the History of Beer section as well. Conversely, if we are going to consider the women-brewed-beer information worthy of inclusion in the article, that inclusion in the article makes it a legitimate option for material to be included in the intro sentence. (2) If we can agree that it is a legitimate option for material to be included in the intro sentence then this comes down to a difference in taste. Quoting Help:Etiquette "If it's intended to be humorous as it stands - respect others' warped minds and ignore it (unless you think that you can improve the comic intent or it really, really detracts from the factual content)" I say humor, or silliness, should not be removed unless you can replace it with something better. I like the woman's-greatest-invention girliest-drink stuff as a subversion of cultural associations between beer drinking and manliness. You don't like it but that is okay, there is no need for everyone to remove anything that is not strictly informative unless it conforms to their own tastes. SolPyre (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) If it is in the history then there is no need to shoe horn it into the intro for no reason other than (2) make a lame joke about woman inventing beer. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) In what way is it shoe-horned? The intro is one sentence long, so you can't be arguing that the intro is too long to fit in the metaphorical intro-shoe. The difference between the version I want and the version you want is the difference between the word "woman" and the word "mankind," so you can't be arguing that my version contains too much meaning to fit in the metaphorical shoe, it contains exactly the same amount of meaning. Are you arguing that TWO hyperbolic statements/exaggerations are too many to fit in a single shoe-sentence? Both exaggerating the contributions of historical woman brewers by attributing the invention of beer solely them (which for all we know might not be an exaggeration at all) AND hyperbolically stating that beer defined modern civilization as we know it (your contribution, which I included in my version of the sentence) is too much? (2) You are restating that you don't like the mild joke. I will also restate my point, more bluntly this time: You are not the sole arbiter of humor. You do not get to dictate which hyperbolic statements/exaggerations are acceptably fun. If you have more specific objections to or arguments about the humor of the women-inventing-beer thing please type them out. SolPyre (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's add a (3) on here, all formal like. (3) Do you still object to the word "girliest" in the history section? Cause you reverted that too, but it is not stuffed into the intro-shoe which looks like your main complaint. So maybe we can agree "girliest" can be restored to its rightful throne before continuing our argument about the intro. SolPyre (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rightful throne? What the fuck are you talking about? What is up with your novel of a response? Jesus man, the previous intro was dumb and I simplified it. Aceⁱ⁹ 17:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rightful throne is just a spot of silliness. All that novel writing I just did put me in the mood for some lighter tone. Just to relax my cramped novelists typing fingers. -- What is up with the novel response is that I am trying to argue with you. Do you want to engage with my arguments at all? cause right now you are just being dismissive. You reverted my edits and started this talk section. I say this as respectfully as I can; Please either put some effort into this discussion or concede your position. SolPyre (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not trying to argue with you. I fixed a dumb thing written on a wiki. Concede my position? What position? Jesus man - pull it together. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked Okay... Maybe you are genuinely confused by my behavior, I'll drop the jokes and the formal language. I'll explain: I'm not going crazy or something over here. I'm trying to talk to you. This is what has happened so far --

You made two edits, here is a link to the diff [1]. Then I made three edits, here is a link to the diff [2]. My edits restored part of what you got rid of in your edits. Then you Rollback-ed my edits and opened this new talk page section. You said why you had rollbacked my edits and said "Discuss."

You started this discussion. If you don't want to take the time to talk to me about it anymore that is fine, you don't have to.

Your version of the intro says: Beer is mankinds greatest invention, after the wheel, defining modern civilisation as we know it.[1]

My version of the intro says: Beer is one of woman's[1] greatest inventions, before the wheel, defining modern civilisation as we know it.[2]

If you aren't trying to argue with me, that is okay. Just say that you don't care which version of the intro is on this wiki and we don't have to talk about it. -- If you do care about the intro then you need to talk about why your version of it should be kept. When a person talks about why they are right about something it is called "defending" their "position". When a person does not want to talk about why they are right about something anymore they can choose to exit the discussion, this can be called "conceding" their "position". Does this explanation help? SolPyre (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The joke works. It's a subversion on the phrase "mankind" (it's arguably exclusionary to women) as well as western cultural norms treating beer as a "man's beverage". That you tried revert it to "mankind" proves the point doesn't it. It's also not "just" a joke; it's backed by a reference and it DOES add to the article by, well, being informative on the history of beer. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is easily the most retarded exchange I’ve ever had on this fucking site. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Again with the dismissive responses. Ace, trying to have a discussion with you has been like trying to squeeze water from a stone. LeftyGreenMario has already changed the page back to the woman's-greatest-invention version, and it sounds like you don't want to talk anymore, so I think we are done here. SolPyre (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this discussion is done. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a few things. 1. Jokes that require explaining, Point fact, are no funny. The above conversation shows that. In the article, this joke at the beginning of the article requires explanation. It provided a reference, which if you take the time to follow means you arent chuckling at the Witty take down of the patriarchy. I'm not gonna say if it's funny or not, my sides ain't splitting but that's not issue, I will say it's dreadfully on the nose. That's an issue I'd take with it.

Now 2. Poor references. The witch craft claims are dubious at best and even flagged as such in the conversation's article. I've tried to find some more depth on the extent witchcraft accusations helped push women out the booze business but I can't find anything good. all the articles I looked at really just assume it did, and many seem to be repeating the same quote. Witch hunts did not happen everywhere at the same time to the same extent. It's dubious at best to claim witch hunts of a period was significant to women brewers Going under. I'd also take issue with the claim everyone believes brewing is a masculine activity. It was news to me. So once upon a day not too surprised by women being involved heavily. Brewing was cottage industry. Like weaving. Done in cottages. More often than not by women. That all ended as cities grew larger and the brewing became industrialised with industrial process. The cottage industry gradually disappeared as factories out produce a cottage wholesale. Women disappeared because they were poor and could not afford to compete with an industrialising industry. And women, who were locked of industry in general, due the being poor aspect again, rather than anything else. It was as much a class based takeover as much anything else. Its a pretty weak sauce and lacking in depth and nuance for looking at ways patriarchal society have historically fucked over women. We do a better job of that elsewhere, here its just to support a weak joke that's probably already labouring the point by the time we get to any real 'in article' explanations.

The third point is, aside from too much effort in defence or attack of an unfunny joke, or the quality of the rest of the article requires is poor quality and ace should have just ignored it as par for the course and I could have then ignored the really po faced defence, is that as asked by Bob elsewhere on this page, why is this not all in the existing fun spaced article to begin with, seeing as it has that tone and quality to it. all involved should take a deep breath and go for a walk and gain some perspective on the subjectiveness of humour and how rationalwiki will die on the hill of 'for the lols' and snarky points of view when collectively we really and consistently shit at it.AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article How Beer Gave Us Civilization is an opinion piece in the New York Times whose author admits is a non-consensus view of scholars based on "circumstantial evidence". The whole intro of this wiki article needs to be scrapped. Wesiree (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay... hhuuuuu! After all that garbage with Ace I went through you come in here with an actual argument!? AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT!! how dare you! ; ) I'll tell you what though -- I ain't standing for Ace's sockpuppet swooping in here and claiming an unearned victory. AMassiveGay, not that you owe me anything, but would you do me the honor of editing the Beer article yourself to remove, or change, the material that you have presented arguments against? I'll go ahead and revert the sockpuppet's edits and then leave the stage open. How about it? SolPyre (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

To a specific point: the account is trying to pass off a piece in the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory (a peer reviewed scholarly journal) as fluff. Hmm.

The "did beer significantly contribute to civilization" (specifically, the domestication of grain) postulate is very old in archaeology, dating at least to the 1950s when a certain Robert John Braidwood passed on a postulate of a botanist of his that beer came first. The counterpoint, of course, is bread drove grain domestication, so typically the debate is framed in a "beer or bread?" manner. I think bread is the general consensus of "which came first", but it's not a locked solid one, the "beer hypothesis" pops up from time to time, and either way I think beer is seen as an important contribution regardless.

Personally I think there probably is a "why not both?" angle. Making beer and making (traditional leavened) bread are fairly similar processes, as they both take grasses that are not that highly nutritious on its own (a lot of inedible starches) and make useful foods out of it with the help of a certain ubiquitous fungus (yeast). Modern beer depends on malting to help convert starches as well, so although malting also predates recorded history and you could make a (starchy) "beer" without malt, that makes me lean towards bread as well as an "armchair quarterback" guess on which came first. But who knows. BobJohnson (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@SolPyre Sockpuppet? What the fuck are you talking about? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)