Talk:Whisky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Definition of Single Malt

A single malt whisky comes from a single distillery, not a single distillation. Many distilleries, for example Glenlivet, combine whiskies distilled in different years to attempt to keep the whisky consistent, of a particular flavor and style; the age statement is that of the youngest spirit in the whisky. Some distilleries do bottle whisky made in a particular year, for example Glenrothes, which includes the distillation year on the lable, however, there is nothing saying that all the whisky is from a single distillation, as Glenrothes has many stills, each being run several times in a year, making hundreds of different distillations a year. What I think is ment by the single distillation idea is what's known as a Single Barrel whisky, or sometimes Single Cask. However, as a single distillation generally fills several casks, this is more restrictive than a single distillation. If you have any questions, please see the refrences in Single Malt Scotch. Gentgeen 09:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe, but have no source for the claim, that "Single Malt" originally did refer to the product of a single year's malting and distillation, and "Pure malt" was used for any whisky that was from a single distillery but contained multiple years' malts. Over time, and out of distilleries' desire to market consistent products, it became standard practice to combine several years' distillations at bottling time and to the call the product 'single malt'. Since then, pure malt has fallen into disfavor.

Please remember, whiskies made by a mix of several pure malt whiskies (i.e. mixing barrels) whether those be from several distilleries, or merely different years from the same distillery, are properly known as vatted malts rather than single malts. Ideally, a single malt ought to come from a single barrel, or at least a single distilling, though the appellation is tolerated for a mix of whiskies from the same year in a single distillery.--Svartalf 01:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true. I don't know a single distillery that uses single barrel as its standard product. There are numerous reasons for this, the main one being that distilleries want whiskies with the same name to taste the same. The age on a single malt whisky bottle indicates the age of the youngest whisky used in the mixture. It would be nice if someone could get a hold of the british legal definition, so arguing won't be neccecairy. Besides, it would make a nice source for the article :) Martijn Hoekstra 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Bourbon a Malt Whiskey or Not?

By law, Bourbon must be at least 51% corn content in the mash (that's "maize" for people from countries not entitled to call their whiskey by the name "Bourbon"). It also uses malted barley. So, is Bourbon a malt whiskey or not?

This page http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/Scripts/search/searchfiles/qa-lead.htm seems to indicate that Bourbon is a malt whiskey. I would say add it...

Malt whisky is a term used only for whisky made entirely from malted grain. As the corn in bourbon is not malted (and generally neither is the rye or wheat, either; only the barley is, and it only makes up 2-8 percent), the whiskey is not a malt. There are many bourbons that come from a single distillery, yet none of them call themselves Single Malt Bourbon, whereas if they were malt whiskies they could. Straight whiskey is the term used for unblended American whiskies that are not malts. See pure pot still whiskey for another high quality whisky that's not a malt. To my knowldge, the only malt whiskies produced in the U.S. are from one or two boutique distilleries in California, most famously, the distillery run by the Anchor Brewing Company. Gentgeen 16:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scotchblog 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Bourbon is NOT a malt whiskey, Malt whisky is made from a grain that is malted. Rye and Barley can be malted, but corn can not be - there is no reason to, since malting is the process of turning starch to fermentable sugar. And Corn has sugar. Also since, buy Law Bourbon must consist of no less that 51% corn and no more that 79% corn, there's no legal way for it to be considered either "Single" or "Malt"

My understanding is that "single" refers to whisky that comes from a single distillery, so I don't see why a bourbon could not be "single." Also, it might not be useful to malt corn since it already contains sufficient sugars, but I imagine one could do so if one wished, so it might not be correct to say there is no legal way for a bourbon to be either "single" or "malt." But the fact is that "single" and "malt" are terms that are useful in describing Scotch whisky, and bourbon, being a superlative whiskey in its own right, does not need to borrow them to vouch for its quality.

Definitively, no. Bourbon must contain at least 51% corn in the mash, and corn is a grain that cannot be malted, period. Single malt whisky requires that ALL the grain used in the mash be malted. However, "Straight bourbon whisky", since it cannot be mixed with whisky of any other distillery, *does* meet the definition of single grain whisky.

Sipping Whiskey

I've seen or heard the term sipping whiskey used to described various American Whiskeys such as in Jack Danials Sipping Wiskey. It is my understanding that this term refers to whiskey that is considered of sufficient quility to be slowly sipped straight as apposed to a lower quility whiskey better suited for use in mixed drinks. I'm assuming that this designation has no legal definition. I think the term should be mentioned in the article but I want to be sure I am using the term correctly before I add it. --Cab88 13:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Most often, where used, the term seems to be used opposite the term 'gulping' whiskey. The main occurance of both terms in cinema seems to be in westerns, denoting the quality (whether the drink is suitable to be tasted, or purely consumed - for inebriation, 'warmth', as an analgesic, etc). Whether the terms were indeed used as a frontier-minded approach to grading whiskey, or a pure fabrication is another matter

Distillation

American Bourbon is generally distilled twice before aging from what I have read.

Are there many whiskies that are single distilled? Most Scotch is double distilled too. I hear that some Irish whiskies are even triple distilled before casking.--Svartalf 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this on the Egg Nog episode of Good Eats, too. I'm going to be bold and edit the reference that they're distilled once out of the article. Scott Ritchie 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

single distillation will not yeald a alcohol content sufficent to call the finished product whiskyMartijn Hoekstra 15:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All Irish Whiskies are triple distilled. Scotch is distilled twice with the exception of Auchentoshan and Springbank which are triple distilled. Bourbon is distilled twice according to the distillery pages I checked.

Not all Irish Whiskies are 3x distilled. Connemara and Tyrconnel from Cooley are 2x

Multiple stage distillation is necessary with simple pot stills because a single distillation cannot remove enough water to achieve the desired alcohol concentration (generally, 50%) using that technology. Modern technology makes it possible to achieve any alcohol concentration in a single pass and most neutral spirits (i.e., ethanol), whether for drinking, industrial or fuel use, are produced in a single pass. Although American whiskey producers use stills that are capable of achieving the desired alcohol content in a single pass, it has been determined that the desired flavor cannot be achieved in this way, so a second distillation is performed which polishes the spirit and gives it the characteristic and desirable taste profile.Cowdery 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

restyle of all of the whisky pages.

The whole structure of all whisky branches on wikipedia is rather vague at the moment. There is also a lot of redundancy. What I propose is a geographic division, with a brief description on the main page, and a link to a Wiki page. Within that division a sub division is possable based on production and/or base product. IMO these wont be needing their own page. they can, offcourse, be found by referal to the subtype, possably anchored to the right section. I am well aware that some of them also show some overlap, but thats a pain we will have to live with. This is how I propose my division.

Whisky

• Canadian whiskey
• Scotch whisky

-(Single) malt whisky

- blended whisky

- grain whisky

• American whiskey

- corn whiskey

- rye whiskey

- sour mash whiskey

- Etc.

• Irish whiskey
• Japanese whiskey
• Etc.

Seems generally reasonable, though I think there would be need for more specific categories for Irish and Japanese whisky. (Japanese whisky, by the way, not whiskey). Come to think of it, the Japanese whisky industry, my particular interest, is similarly divided to the Scotch one and there are a number of European, Antipodean, and North American whiskies that also fit within the single malt, blended, and grain breakdown. It would be misleading to identify this with your geographic schema. I would have thought that it may work better to have the breakdown you now put under Scotch floating free, with Scotch references in the articles and references from Scotch, Japan etc to it. Buyo 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

History

I read recently in a book that regions known for whisky tend to also be known for beer (both grain products) and cognac regions are asssociated with wine (both grape products) because further north, grapes could not be grown as well. —BenFrantzDale 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite right. It's true that whisky making areas are associated with beer making, the same as both wine and brandy are made in grape growing country, but areas known for great whisky or cognac are not renowned for the excellence of the corresponding fermented product. Actually, in wine country, you usually make brandy from wine not good enough to be a good cash crop. --Svartalf 21:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Aah. Right. That's probably closer to what I was reading. I'll add mention of it although right now I don't have the citation. —BenFrantzDale 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You really need to quote source for a logical fact? wine and brandy are from grapes, beer and whisky from barley... in both cases it's normal that regions producing either drink should be close, or of similar climate, to those producing the other, since the basic ingredient is the same. --Svartalf 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NATO alphabet

It's a small matter, but I'm not happy with this edit. It makes it look like the alphabet was used only in aviation. I think we should just mention the alphabet and let the reader click on the link and read for him/herself what the alphabet is about (including that it's used in aviation). Also, maybe the note would be better off at the top of the page as a kind of a disambiguation note? But probably that's not a good idea. PeepP 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Related Links Gone

Why did someone remove the related links section. And how can I get it back?

Whisky in Great Britain

Although the spelling whisky in Wales, Scotland and England is almost always used for Scotch Whisky, the same's not true of the spoken word, which could refer to Whisky or Whiskey. I'm not sure this is as clear as it could be. I'm also not convinced (having lived in Wales, England and Scotland) that the term Scotch by itself is so rare in England and Wales. I've added the variant forms chwisgi and wisgi for Welsh as well, since they're common alternatives to wysgi. I'm most familiar with Chwisgi myself. Garik 15:39, 29 April 2006.

I agree with these sentiments entirely. I too presumed the text implied that the spoken term whisky rather than its written spelling exclusively referred to Scottish Whisky in Britain. This isn't true. Whisky is whisky, it can be Scottish, Irish, American or from wherever. Zexpe 3 July 2006

As whisky and whiskey are pronounced in exactly the same way, I think it's self-evident that it's impossible to distinguish between the Irish and Scottish drinks in spoken English. I think most people in Britain are referring to whisky (i.e. Scottish whisky) when they say the word though, because Scotland is part of Britain and Scottish whisky sells in larger quantities in England than Irish whiskey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Cleanup?

There was just now a cleanup tag on this article. It has been removed, but could the placer please indicate what there is to clean up? Martijn Hoekstra 07:10pm, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

HIstorical context

I see nothing talking about when whiskey was invented, by who, and where it took hold. Mathiastck 14:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--ScotchGuy 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) If You know tell us - this is an absolute unknown with many theories. None of them proved. As for "who" forget it.

'What is Whisky'

that section seems to only talk about various types. i think it should have it's name changed.

--ScotchGuy 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) There is no "What is Whisky" section on this page

I agree. I heard that the composition of whiskey is about 50% water. I'd like to know if this is true or not -OOPSIE- 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whisky Making Process?

Does this article need a section on the process for making whisky? I understand that this information is covered elsewhere (according to the edit history), however, it would make sense to have this here on the main page for whisky. Any thoughts? AristonAstuanax 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Swap heading and other comments

On reading this article I was confused by the different usages of whiskey and whisky. As this is central to the article I would suggest moving it to before types of whisky. It will then read better and people can still skip to the types section using contents box.

Also in the Types of Whisky section there is a lot of "X whisky must be made from Y", which is fine by I would have thought that there should have to be references here to the authorities of these quotes.

Anyway I have no knowledge of whisky so I will let others make these decisions - Cheers Lethaniol 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Health implications of whisky

anybody cares to add "health implications" chapter?

Sounds like a dumb idea, seeing how it would mean that would have to put up your suggested "chapter" on every alcoholic beverage page. Superdude99 17:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"60ml of whisky a day" keeps the doctor away and i suggest it for all adults and aged people to have 60ml a day, It stimulates the brain and makes embryonic tissue continues to fold,The blood flows to all the blood vessels freely and it avoids the heart stroke.(DONZ)

I assume that the 10 studies mentioned all showed health benefits, but that there may be other studies that show no or negative health benefits. For a credible chapter, we need a summary of all studies (for example, "Of the 13 studies on alcohol comsumption published in JAMA in the last decade, 68% show some benefit associated with moderate alcohol consumption") and a citation. In the meantime, we should at least make clear that these studies are only the ones that show positive effects, because I read the chapter implying that this represents all studies on the matter. Piquin 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First destillation

The article claims that the first alcoholic destillates appeared around 800 AD in the Middle East, but according to Terence Scully's The Art of Cookery in the Middle Ages, the Chinese made "an early form of whisky" (pg. 158) from rice beer as early as 800 BC. He cites Robert James Forbes' A Short History of the Art of Destillation" for this statement.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As to the validity of the "citation" for "significant" increase in cancer risk as stated:

"Furthermore, frequent consumption of strong spirits, such as whisky, significantly increases a person's chance of developing head and neck cancers.[30]"

The actual citation gives no mention of whisky at all and only mentions a difference between wine and spirits. The actual source cited is also not credible since it only mentions "studies" and no actual information about any specific one; or when, or whom by the study was conducted.

I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.43.210 (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why target one particular external link over some others ?

I would appreciate an explanation as to why both 'scotchguy' and then "davidhallett' felt the need to remove the external link to www.bestofwhisky.com, especially under the heading of Spam. I visit a number of links that are referenced here, and I cannot understand why bestofwhisky was targeted. I would expect people visiting wiki for whisky would be interested in the latest news affecting the industry. Bestofwhisky is not selling or advertising, so again... why ?

I don't have the time to get into a war of adding/deleting links, but some of the other links clearly break 'wiki' best practices. For example, the first link is sctochblog, and it is full of advertising, even begging "please buy my book"

Why would 'scotchblog' remain, but 'bestofwhisky' not ?

Personally, I visit both frequently and believe they are both good external links.

Sincerely, Mogilny8 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Came across your question and thought I'd give you my input as an uninvolved Wikipedian. The bestofwhisky site is a blog site run by one or more fans. There are under 50 news articles concerning whisky. The news, while interesting, is not CNN/Times quality in nature. The site, while using an attractive template on top of WordPress, is not particularly noteworthy. That does not mean it is a bad site or anything. I applaud the site's creators, and wish them well in growing into a truely remakable site in the future. Since the site is not there yet, I agree with the removal of the link in a general way. I have not checked any of the other whisky links, and it is conceivable that bestofwhisky is the best link of the bunch, in which case I'd be in favor of keeping it, but with as many external links as there are, that's probably not the case. We can and should be selective in choosing external links. Only best of breed resources should be chosen, with minimal overlap, along with providing excellent value (preferably at no cost). Bestofwhisky is free, but I do not think it is the best of its breed at this time. These are only my observations and thoughts. The people who delete the link may share some of my opinions, but they should really speak for themselves. Take care. --Willscrlt 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your observation Willscrlt. That was very well put, and I cannot disagree with your assessment. I can certainly live with that logical explanation for the time being. However I would still like to hear from the editors that removed the links, to see if they felt the same as you. thanks again Mogilny8 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Alot of types of whiskies are under the heading Scotch e.g. blended. A blended whiskey isn't necessarily Scotch. Wouldn't it be better to have these under a seperate heading. e.g.

• Scotch: Whiskey produced ...... 3 years ....
• .
• .
• .
• Japanese: ....

Types

• Blended:
• .
• .
• .
• Vatted:

Everytime 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Everytime (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unpeated Malt

Irish whiskeys are generally distilled three times and must be aged in oak casks for a period of not less than three years. Unpeated malt is almost always used.

Could someone be so kind as to describe the term "Unpeated malt" in more detail,please?

I have googled the web and can't find a clear explanation of the term or the process it describes.

The production of malt whiskey begins with the malting of barley. This is where the barley is steeped in water almost to the point of germination. The purpose of this is to cause the barley to release enzymes that will break down its starches which will in turn help to convert them into sugars. The barley is then removed from the water to be dried. Traditionally in Scotch whisky production, the barley is dried over peat fires causing a “smoky” quality to be imparted to the barley. In the making of Irish whiskey, drying is accomplished by placing the barley in closed ovens which creates an "unpeated malt." This is the most significant reason in the distinct difference in taste between the two.

BTW, Irish whiskey, is in accordance with the Irish Whiskey Act of 1980, must be aged for at least three years in wooden casks, but not necessarily oaken casks. Sláinte! Cafe Irlandais 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, quite right about the wooden rather than oak point. As far as I'm aware however they are usually aged in Oak casks. If others agree this is correct (I cannot find a source giving any sort of statistical breakdown) should a mention be made of this? Canderra 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of the word Whiskey

There is an uncited claim in the article that the Gaelic uisce/uisge beatha or 'water of life' may come from the Scandinavian phrase for this same concept. This is absolute rubbish. The Oxford English Dictionary and Chamber's Etymological Dictionary both trace the phrase directly back to a Goidelic equivalent to the phrase aqua vitae in Medieval Latin. The section here also makes a suggestion that it comes from the French term aqua de vite meaning 'water of the vine.' Is the contributor seriously suggesting that the Gaels formed the phrase 'water of life' as an equivalent to a French phrase meaning something entirely different but sounding similar to an equivalent Latin phrase? Not to mention that the term aqua de vite makes its first appearance long after the first reference to the Gaelic word itself. Both of these claims seem like amateur linguistic speculation. All the same, I double checked both references and found nothing in either the OED or Chambers. If there's no objection, I’m going to remove both of the uncited claims before they result in further confusion. Fergus mac Róich 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I have also researched this claim of sorts and can nothing that would even remotely substantiate it. ~~Cafe Irlandais ^{"Earth calling Cafe Irlandais..."} 3 April 2007

Unaged Whiksy

I remeber that I read somewhere that unaged (therefore clear) whiskies are becoming popular in some areas. Does anyone know if this is true and if so sould the article reflect this.?

I haven't heard this, though it may be true. However, such a product could not legally be called whisky in many places, since there are legal requirements for aging. Of course there will be other places with different rules. It sounds an interesting thing to mention if it can be sourced. Notinasnaid 08:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure whether this is the same, but clear whisky is a rarer version of whisky, which is distilled under slightly different conditions (cask related) and can still meet ageing etc requirements, don't feel i have enough knowledge to add reliably to article --Gamma2delta 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

There are too many, one or two would be fine. If there is good info that we can use in any of them, let's bring it into the article and use the link as a reference. If not, I'm going to prune them down a bit. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links.--Guinnog 03:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to revisit this, perhaps start by removing all links and then strictly applying Wikipedia:External links. However, there has been staunch defence of blogs in the past, which are not normally approved of. There have been accusations of conflict of interest. Maybe this time we can manage a civilised discussion. Perhaps we can start the discussion here: what links do people propose keeping, why, and how does the guideline apply? Notinasnaid 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support removing the section entirely, and as Guinnog suggested, add only those that can be used as sources to the references section. It also seems that most of the external links listed now would be more relevant to Scotch whisky rather than this article. -- CODOR 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are too many external links, so be it. But I have to agree that some external sites seem to stay for no other reason than personal preference, (something actually admitted previously by some editors) Whether a site is a blog or not does not bother me. If it is a good site, that should be enough. I've added bestofwhisky 2 times in the past, and to see it deleted, when other 'blog' sites remain seems unfair. Why ? I won't mention names but after review, some of the remaining sites are full of advertisements ? Isn't this a breech of good practice. Again, it should be fair. I for one, think that whisky news is a good external reference to this subject, not just single malts, but the entire industry... my 2 cents Mogilny8 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be worth trying to reach a consensus that takes in both this article and scotch whisky, with a view at least that no link should appear in both, but only the one to which it best applies. If it applies at all. Notinasnaid 08:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've patiently watched as additional links have been added, and the same blog sites also remain. I think I now agree with CODOR with his suggestion "revisit this, perhaps start by removing all links" Eventually if there remains no rhyme or reason but what seems to me as personal preference, I will simply add the link I feel best suits an external reference link. Mogilny8 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. After quite some months (years?) of presence somebody deleted the extrernal link to my tasting diary/blog (whiskyfun.com) which is one of the oldest and that never contained any publicity. I feel it is a bit bizarre to do that suddenly and frankly I don't care too much, but I feel a huge tasting database (thousands of whiskies) did complement the pages. I had thought it was a technical problem but now I know it isn't. I'll just stop bothering from now on (but please watch the purely commercial links to websites that you're keeping 'alive' it seems). Thanks. Serge

Named types

"The most common of the "named types" are Bourbon, which must be between 51% and 79% (inclusive) corn (maize); rye, which must be at least 51% rye, and corn, which must be at least 80% corn." .... Come again? Since I don't know anything about whiskey (but I assume its not made from more than 100% of anything), could somebody fix this? Thanks Staple 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is wrong. The confusion may come because corn and rye are both ingredients and the names of types. The sentence could be written more pedantically with bullet points as follows (though this is not recommended style for Wikipedia):

The most common of the "named types" are

• The type named "Bourbon whiskey", whose ingredients must include between 51% and 79% (inclusive) corn (maize) grain.
• The type named "rye whiskey", whose ingredients must include at least 51% rye grain.
• The type named "corn whiskey", whose ingredients must include at least 80% corn grain.

Perhaps the sentence could be improved, without become quite so pedantic. Notinasnaid 08:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see. Yes, I think just adding the word whiskey behind each type, (Bourbon whiskey ect..) to indicate a proper name rather than an ingredient, should do the trick. Although if I had read it more carefully in the first place...Staple 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the mistaken assumption that the rules set a maximum corn content (e.g., 79%) for bourbon, which they do not. I have corrected this in the entry and mention it here to dispell this popular but completely wrong notion. Cowdery 17:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

According to USC, Title 27, §5.22 (2)(b)(ii):

"Whisky conforming to the standard of identity for corn whisky must be designated corn whisky." Thus if the mash is 80% or more corn, it must be labeled as corn whiskey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.14.184 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mekhong (Thai Whiskey)

Mekhong "whiskey" is made from rice. Does that mean it is not actually a whiskey? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Everytime (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Mekhong (Thai Whiskey)

Mekhong "whiskey" is made from rice. Does that mean it is not actually a whiskey? Everytime 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, as long as it's made solely from grain of any and all types, it's allowed to be called whisky. It can't, however, be sold as such in America unless it's aged for some period in oak casks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.14.184 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

0.7 pass

I have passed this article for Wikipedia 0.7. I have also changed this article's rating to B class. Funpika 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Whiskey" from India

A couple weeks ago there was a front page story in the Wall Street Journal about a maker of whiskey in India. The India "whiskeys" were apparently distilled from cane sugar alcohol rather than grain, which makes their claim to be whiskey rather dubious in my eye, but that's apparently how they are marketed there. And here's a story from the Mumbai Mail and Guardian about these molasses whiskies. Should these whiskies be mentioned? - Smerdis of Tlön 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are such whiskies from India and they are the subject of controversy in the whisky world. There are also completely standard whiskies from India (eg. Amrut) Buyo 13:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is from sugar, it is rum, not whiskey. Mystery solved.

24.95.47.51 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

images

I recently did some changing of the images of the article, for several reasons. I removed the lead image bc although it was a quality photo, it was of a single branded, corporate product. A lead image that is neutral, along the lines of the Wine article, is much better. I also added a production image of a distillery, and switched another single brand image to a photo of a collection of various brands and styles of whisky. I feel this maintains both the encyclopedic usefulness of the images and a neutral point of view. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE WHISKEY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.132.2 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mackmyra, the Swedish Whisky

Just thought I should mention that Sweden has recently started producing whisky. Mackmyra is the only distillery currantly on the market, and on their web-page (http://www.mackmyra.com/) they claim to have won international prizes for their produce. I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to mention this under "Other Countrys"! --QuiNonStultus (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian whisky section copyvio

I removed the Australian whisky section due to copyvio. Pretty much copied verbatim with a few exclusions and attempts at masking. [1] --Sesameball^Talk 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, although perhaps some of the detail can be salvaged in a non-copyvio way? --HighKing (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely possible to salvage some, but it'll have to be done NPOV and more citations. Personally I'd also like more focus on the history and background rather than ratings compared to whisky/ey from other nations. I might take a look at it next week when I have a bit more time. --Sesameball^Talk 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Health Benefits

I removed the stuff about the distilling process making whisky 'completely Gluten Free' as well as the preamble stating something along the lines of 'it used to be thought that gluten-free diet could not include beers lagers ales and stouts'. The reason for removal is that the reference does not link to an existing article and I know for a fact that whiskey is not gluten free. The preamble also implied that beers, lagers, ales etc. are gluten free too. Neither of these claims are true as seen on Wikipedia's own gluten free diet page and the fact that my girlfriend who has coeliac disease will start vomiting if she has more than a few sips of beer or any Jim Beam or Jack Daniels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.206.201 (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

'Neither of these claims are true as seen on Wikipedia's own gluten free diet page' Thats great, but we have a little rule here on Wikipedia that we don't refer to other wikipedia pages. And please, keep the anecdotes to yourself. It smells of OR Anoderate1 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Whisky

I removed the following from the History section: Welsh tradition holds that whisky was invented in Wales by Reaullt Hir on Bardsey Island in 356 AD, though this authenticity of this claim is undocumented.

This claim comes from http://www.celticmalts.com/journal.asp?cat=51&hierarchy=0%7C4%7C9 and talks about the distillation of mead, not whisky. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

This page and whiskey should be merged, and one made a redirect to the other. Any preferences for which to keep and which to make a redirect? Gentgeen 08:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I merged them. I kept "whisky" since it appears to have been created first (whiskey started out as a redirect). ( 12:31, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's the way I would have gone, but my reason was because more Scotch and Canadian is produced than Irish and American.Gentgeen

Since the word is derived originally from the Irish, Uisce Beatha, should the Irish version of the word, whiskey, not then stand as the definitve one? Just my tuppence worth Dave 22:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The word is derived from the Gaelic family of languages which includes Irish and Scottish Gaelic, so your argument isn't valid. Jizz 14:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect scottish is a dialect of Irish. The name should be changed to Whiskey.

83.70.161.187 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

im afraid sir, it is you who is incorrect Myself0101 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Title 27, Part 5, Subpart C, section 5ff., the proper designation of a spirit distilled from a mash of grain to less than 190proof and aged in oak containers, is "whisky" (plural whiskies). "Whiskey" is only allowed as a historical curiosity. Maker's Mark and George Dickel are two that use the official spelling on their bottles. Thus, 'whisky' ought to be the title for the article (sorry, Ireland!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.14.184 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

hehe - "historical curiosty" how are you! Although I have a history I am by no means a "historical curioristy" when I use the spelling "whiskey". Whiskey is the "proper" spelling to every normal persion and "whisky" is the ultimate "historical curiosity". It is only tightness to drop the 'e'. Huh, the Scots. I can also attest, here ar meisce as I am, that Jamesons, Bushmills and Paddy - may all their children be bishops - also have the proper and correct spelling: W-H-I-S-K-E-Y. The fact the the English and the Scots can't spell should come as no surprise to us ;-)193.1.172.145 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence in the introduction contains some redundancies, since malting is necessary to convert the starch in grains to fermentable sugar: "Different grains are used for different varieties, including barley, malted barley, rye, malted rye, wheat, and maize (corn)." Damn Sexy 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Damn_Sexy

History again

The History section really could use some work. Much of it is sourced from whisky.com, which is in the business of selling whisky so doesn't really qualify as a reliable source. Some of what it says is just plain wrong, for example Phylloxera is not a beetle. The section talks almost exclusively about Scotch whisky, not surprising considering the source. Surely there have been books written about the history of whisky, and there must be some editor on Wikipedia able to re-write this section. Rees11 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Corsican whisky

The reference given for Corsican whisky doesn't say anything about whisky. I suspect there is something wrong with the web site, as it looks like the page is truncated. An alternate source would be good. Rees11 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Types

The current paragraph under Types begins as follows:

Malt is whisky made entirely from malted barley and distilled in an onion-shaped pot still. Grain is made from malted...

I suggest for symmetry with the first sentence about malt whisky that the sentence on grain whisky be modified by inserting the single word "whisky" as follows: Grain is whisky made from malted...

Alternatively, and I confess I don't know if this is contrary to how the terms are used in the business, you could move the word "whisky" to the second word of both sentences. Again the idea being to make the two sentences symmetrical.

Malt whisky is made... Grain whisky is made...

Mthorn10 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Different kinds of wooden barrels?

Does the use of oak have an effect on whisky's flavor? The main page of this article could be improved by comparing the kinds of wood used in the barrels used for different whiskies. 216.99.201.75 (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling and sour mash

I wish to compliment you on the excellent entry, “Whisky” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky). I’d like to add a few of my comments:

Under TYPES, line 14, you use “Canadian Whiskey” however, your article is very clear that Canadians use “Whisky”.

Also, the title of reference 55 is "Canadian Whiskey". The Spirit World.. Retrieved 2007-12-18, however, that is the author’s error.

I was surprised that you did not explain Sour Mash. I was always told that that is a special process used only in Kentucky in Bourbons distinguishing them from Tennessee Bourbons. In most cases, Old Crow® refers to it product as The Original Sour Mash Bourbon although Jim Beam, currently one of the best selling brands of bourbon in the world, also used Sour Mash.

Sincerely, Gerry Dooley gerrydooley@sbcglobal.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.240.11 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is my understanding:

• Whisky/whiskey is a word that has two acceptable spellings, depending primarily on the region in which an author resides. Sometimes people try to spell it the way the producer of a product spells it, and sometimes people just spell it the way they like to spell it. Some people try to make a big deal out of the spelling as part of their strategy for making money – i.e., as part of establishing a distinct brand identity. This seems clearly be true of some producers of Scotch Whisky and others such as Maker's Mark (a Kentucky Bourbon) and George Dickel (a Tennessee whiskey). People who try to insist that other people spell it according to their own rigid rules are likely to end up somewhat frustrated. If an American publication spells the word according to its local convention when referring to a product made in another country, that's not necessarily an error. I don't check where my car's tires are made before deciding whether to call them tires or tyres, and I don't check where my neighbors were born before deciding whether to refer to them as neighbors or neighbours.
• My understanding is that practically all Bourbon and Tennessee whiskey is made using the sour mash process. Jack Daniel's, for example, is a sour mash whiskey – and it's the largest-selling brand of Tennessee whiskey. The Tennessee whiskey distinction seems like mostly a marketing strategy without any clear difference in how the whiskey is made. Most actual Tennessee whiskey meets the legal definition of Bourbon (and that is actually required by law to some extent – e.g., it is a clear requirement in the law of Canada).
• As part of marketing strategy to sell their products, people tend to be willing to make dubious claims about historical facts. The claim that the sour mash process was originally and exclusively invented by the producer of Old Crow seems pretty dubious.

One author who has written several essays on these topics (backed up by some decent historical and legal research) is Charles Cowdery. It should be easy to search on the Internet for articles that he has written, and several Wikipedia articles reference things he has said. I suggest reading his articles. He seems to usually know what he's talking about and to generally not twist the facts to sell particular products.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian whiskies - Amrut Distilleries

Reads a little bit spammy. Notable? Polmandc (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why no section on health effects?

It should have one. ScienceApe (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is nothing (at least nothing well established as fact) that makes whisky much different from other distilled beverages in terms of its health effects – or from alcoholic beverages in general. This article should be about whisky only. It should not duplicate information that would apply much more generally. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Phrasal adjectives

This article would be improved by hyphenating them, I.e. "single-malt whisky" as opposed to "single malt whisky." Rule 56 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)-

Is there, perhaps, a distiller out there who actually uses "single-malt" on their label that you could cite? Hammersbach (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair question. That I can't point to one yet is a weakness in my argument. But I go to distillers for whisky, not grammatical advice. How they punctuate a term isn't dispositive. If it were, we'd all likely use grocer's apostrophes (e.g., banana's, folio's, logo's, quarto's, pasta's, ouzo's). And we'd incorrectly substitute "less" when "fewer" was called for (e.g., "Express Lane: 12 items or less" instead of "Express Lane: 12 items or fewer.") No, it seems to me that this is a grammatical issue, not a distillation issue.Rule 56 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)-

"Single malt" is not a phrasal adjective in that sense. "Single" means that it comes from a single distillery, "malt" means that it is produced entirely from malted barley. "Single-malt" would mean that it was produced from a single type of malt - LCMO, for instance. In the case of "single cask", a hyphen can be used, but is not actually required - there is no ambiguity, because "cask whisky" is not a term that is in use. Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, you said exactly the opposite about what the "single" in "single malt" means on my talk page: "That is precisely the point - that is NOT the primary reference."Rule 56 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)-

No, I did not. I said the same thing. "Single malt" does not mean the same as "single-malt". "Single" means "single-distillery". "Malt" means "pure malt". "Single-malt", if it were ever used, would mean "produced from a single type of malt". Did you look at the explanation on grain whisky as I suggested? Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, despite an abundance of references to the contrary, the "single" in "single malt" doesn't mean single distillery. Why? Because it's superfluous. When whisky comes from more than one distillery, or when it contains something other than a single malted grain, it's called "blended." So "single malt" means it comes from one type of malted grain. And when you use both words together to describe a whisky, they're properly—though obviously infrequently—hyphenated. How do I know? Professional writers, and the carefully edited periodicals they work for, hyphenate it. I've given you two examples earlier. There are more. Cheers. Rule 56 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you are completely wrong. Single malt means one distillery - as opposed to vatted malt, which comes from several distilleries. (Blended whisky contains malt and grain whiskies) Care to provide a source for your opinion? Preferably one which has some passing relationship to whisky... Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What good would another source do? I've given you several and they're all wrong. Another won't change anything. You've seen it done one way your entire life and are fine with it. Rule 56 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You've found two instances of a hyphen being used - that's hardly the same as a source for the assertion that "single" does not mean "single-distillery". It may be obvious to you, but don't you think you're edging out on to a WP:OR limb here? To the best of my knowledge the whisky industry has also seen it done one way its entire life and is fine with it - isn't that what an encyclopedia should be recording? Let's be clear - I have no quarrel with your insertion of hyphens in compound modifiers, and I have not reverted any of those (I don't think they're necessary, but that's a different argument). This is not about the grammar, it's about the semantics. "Single" and "vatted" are applied to the noun, not to the other adjective, and a hyphen would be entirely wrong. I refer you again to the example of "single grain whisky". Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to wade back into the fray (I get the sense that arguing with you is like wrestling a pig: you enjoy it and I get dirty), but what I've done is pointed to two professionally written, professionally edited publications that support my position. You've responded with the rhetorical equivalent of "but we've always done it this way" (see above where you say that "the whisky industry has also seen it done one way its entire life and is fine with it") and with the tortured argument that "single" actually means "single distillery." The first I can't argue with: it has always been done that way, as incorrect as it may be. The latter is easily debunked: The OED itself defines "single malt" as "whisky unblended with any other malt." http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/single+malt You'll note that the definition doesn't say anything about coming from a single distillery. The "single" in "single malt" has absolutely nothing to do with the nonsense argument that the product comes from one distillery. Cheers. Rule 56 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When you get done wrestling with that pig you may want to spend some quality time reviewing the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009. This very real and legal document defines both “single malt” and “single grain” whiskies as coming from a single distillery, and does so with a curious lack of hyphens. Perhaps it’s time for you to consider switching to a good Bourbon. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. But as a lawyer who spends a good deal of time reviewing legislation, I can tell you that laws are not models of good grammar: all those left-branching sentences, archaic diction, mind-numbing cross references, inflated jargon....not exactly page-turning material. As often as not, laws like that are drafted by industry insiders. And no laws are written by professional writers and editors. Now, off to try your suggestion. Cheers. Rule 56 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to point it out, but since it is part of the discussion above – the term vatted malt is now prohibited under the SWR. The current legal term for use on labels (for Scotch whisky within the UK) is blended malt. (See the vatted malt article, which is now just a redirect.) –BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and Australia

The entire section is missing citations. It mentions Tasmanian whiskeys in particular winning awards, then fails to mention the whiskeys or even provide a picture. Is whoever originally added Australia still around to remedy this? Chrissd21 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Snake whisky

How come no mention of the snake whisky? Its quite famous actually and has Hakarl-like yum. Samar ^Talk 17:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Seems to me that Chuck Cowdery's blog is being used excessively as a reference in this article. Some of the stuff he says on the blog is simply a point of view, and there's no way of telling if he has researched the factoids (or from what sources). I believe the article should stick with traditionally published sources (books). Blogs are not seen as reliable sources as per WP:USERG. --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cowdery is the author of the book Bourbon, Straight, as well as other well known books on the topic, as well as a regular contributor to specialist magazines. He's also got decades of experience in the industry, and is recognized as such as a Kentucky Colonel. He's not just some opinionated self-published source spouting off, but one of the most reliable sources on the subject in the world. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, by whom is Col. Cowdery considered "one of the most reliable sources on the subject in the world"? Hammersbach (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, when one who is quoted on the cover of at least 3 books on whiskey (that he didn't write) it is usually a pretty good sign that respected individuals in the industry consider home to be a respected, knowledgable peer. oknazevad (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand he is published and an expert on the topic of Bourbon whiskey and the American liquor industry. But there's a difference between researched facts contained in a book, and the opinion on a blog of one expert. For example one of his "favorite whiskey myths debunked" (and the topic of "Why Spelling Matters") is persuasive, but contradicted in other expert sources on spelling whiskey. --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland to Scotland

On reading the references theres some shoddy research at best in the second paragraph of the history section. Both cited sources one 'A Short History of the Art of Distillation, by Robert James Forbes' (1948) nor the other a page on About.com neither state distillation spread from Ireland to Scotland. In fact the latter states 'Distilling techniques were brought to Ireland and Scotland sometime between 1100 and 1300'. Therefore I have changed the sentence to the following 'The art of distillation spread to both Scotland and Ireland sometime between the 11th and 12th centuries.'Uthican (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistency of English

I'm sure we're all familiar with WP:MoS's position on consistency.

Although Wikipedia favors no national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.

This means it's sulphur not sulfur (yes, there're guidelines to use IUPAC names but these apply to chemistry articles. It also means no dots on US (consistent with the dotless UK).

There are exceptions to the consistency guideline but that a particular section has strong national ties is not one of them so the American whiskeys section doesn't get to drop the u from flavour, colour & odour.

But the big question is "Do the American whiskeys and Irish whiskeys sections get to add the e?". Well, says the article (refs removed)

There are basically two schools of thought on the issue. One is that the spelling difference is simply a matter of local language convention for the spelling of a word, indicating that the spelling will vary depending on the background or personal preferences of the writer (like the difference between color and colour; tire and tyre; or recognize and recognise), and the other is that the spelling should depend on the style or origin of the spirit that is being described.

I tend more toward the former. Whisky is whisky and whiskey is whisky and whiskey is whiskey and whisky is whiskey. It's the same stuff whether you spell it with an e or not. It has been noted above that the whiskey spelling isn't even universal in the US or Ireland. Do we have a justification for favouring the latter (that spelling should depend on style or origin) or was it just a product of whatever misguided line of thought it was which gave had us dropping the u in the American whiskeys section?

I'm proposing consistant e-less spelling, consistent with the article title, throughout the article. Who's for it? JIMp _talk·cont 09:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I thought it was a misguided line of thought that had us adding the "u" to the article. Hmmm, anyway, I am off to pour myself a spot of Red Breast, one of my favorite whiskeys... Slàinte! Hammersbach (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

English spelling is nothing if it isn't misguided whichever side of whichever pond you be on; we squabble over color vs colour and flavor vs flavour ... when we'd all be better off with culler and flaver anyway. I've gone ahead and switched the whiskeys to whiskys. I stopped for a second when I came across "In modern trade usage, Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey are thus distinguished in spelling; whisky is the usual spelling in Britain and whiskey that in the U.S." (from OED in the refs); is this weight on the side of the spelling-should-depend-on-the-style-or-origin school of thought? Yeah, somewhat ... perhaps ... but this isn't trade usage it's an encyclopædia ... so, on the other hand, no. JIMp _talk·cont 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should have stopped when not a single one of the editors who regularly edit this article said that they agree with your proposal... Slàinte! Hammersbach (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersbach. There is no need to standardise when there is a clear distinction made in the lead between the two spellings and that usage is followed through in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead when after a week and a half not one editor (regulars here or otherwise) said they disagree. Perhaps there is no need to standardise, there is no need not to either, perhaps there's no need for Wikipedia in the first place. Anyhow, if this is the way we're doing things here, so be it, but it didn't have to be this way, it's a choice. How, though, do you write "Canadian and Irish whisky"? JIMp _talk·cont 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The extra "e" was added by Irish distillers (sometime in the 19th cent) as a "mark of quality" to distinguish their product from cheap Scottish-produced "Irish" whiskies. Not all Irish distillers followed the example, but most did. I'll dig out a reference tonight. But it wouldn't be right to "standardize" on one spelling or another. Context does come into it. --HighKing (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the many myths; the truth is there's no standardized spelling of the word, though particular varieties are associated with a particular spelling. See the existing references to Charles Cowdery's works; he's clearly a reliable reference on the matter, and not given to following yet another nonsense myth.oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to push the issue but I don't see it as a matter of right or wrong whether we standardise on one spelling or use both, it's just a matter of style. The article references a blog[2][3] by Chuck Cowdery who argues that whichever way it's spelt it's the same stuff and that the whisky/whiskey question is no different to the colour/color one, i.e. choose one spelling and stick to it. No, there is no standardised spelling of the word but there are dozens of words in English with variant spellings. I agree with him whisky is whisky whether it come from Scotland or Ireland, Canada or America. If the tyres on my car happened to come from America, I wouldn't spell them tires. So it still seems perfectly valid to me to choose one spelling for the article and stick to it; it's no different in my mind to sticking with flavour and colour even though we may be talking about bourbon. But I'm not trying to prove myself right, I'm just saying I'm not wrong. I'm arguing that standardising on one spelling is a valid style but I must concede that I haven't shown that choosing which to use depending on the origin isn't. If consensus is to keep both, so be it. JIMp _talk·cont 01:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it made?

We talk about the name of the stuff, its etymology and spelling. We talk of the history of the stuff. We talk of the different types and places it's made. We talk of its chemistry. But if you want to know how it's made, you'll just have to piece it together by following links and figuring it all out. Let's have a section on how it's made. JIMp _talk·cont 10:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just realized that I never put my intended answer to this idea. The reason to not include such a section in this article is because production methods are too varied from one variety to another to appropriately describe in this general overview article. In other words, while it would be possible to describe the process as: malt barley; cook (with some other grains, sometimes); add yeast to ferment (and maybe backset); move liquid to still (or is it the liquid and the solids; and is that a batch pot still or a continuous column still?); distill to proof (what proof?); put in barrels (new or used?); age (how long?); to blend, or not to blend?; bottle. As one can see, there's just too much potential variation depending on style to make a general enough statement to not bog down the article with excessive detail. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

However, you've sort-of proven yourself wrong. You've managed in just a few lines to give a bit of an idea of how it's make. That could be expanded out into a short section and if the section doesn't do it justice, we could have a whole article on how it's made, but I reckon this is detail that people might like to know. If we end up cluttering the article too much, we could consider whittling down the Types section (i.e. moving it off to a new article and leaving a summary) to make room. JIMp _talk·cont 02:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if anything, the types section should definitely stay, as those links to the articles on specific types contain the specifics of how each one is made, thereby allowing an appropriate level of variation and detail. That's the funny thing about all these different styles of whiskey: outside of being distilled from fermented cereal brains and aged in wooden barrels, they are all made pretty differently. As such, I think mentioning the general definition I just gave, with links to the proper articles on the processes (malting, mashing, fermentation, distillation, and barrel) may be sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Translations

Recently the Japanese translation for whisky was added to the section about Japanese whisky. I might have reverted this on account of there not being any other translations except for the fact that there is. The section on Welsh whisky has a translation too. Do we want translations though? Are they relevant? Are we going to add all the translations? How about the French word for whisky in the Canadian section? How about the Indian section? There are a dozen languages spoken in India. How about a translation to Spanish? Too bad: no Spanish speaking countries make whisky. How about this: leave the translations to Wiktionary? We can stick a link from here. JIMp _talk·cont 08:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. Though there is one Spanish producer of whisky, if I want to know the Spanish word for it, I'd check an English-Spanish dictionary. oknazevad (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A rose is still a rose

Whisk(e)y is still whisk(e)y whether you spell it whisky or whiskey. It's the same thing. Irish whiskey and Australian whiskey are both types of whiskey/whisky. 4.238.5.233 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. JIMp _talk·cont 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

Everything written on this article needs to be verifiable from reputable third-party sources. Anything that is not is liable to be removed. --John (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And it is. When you remove an entire paragraph calling it uncited when there is a citation within the very text you remove, then someone isn't paying attention. Having read through the sources used for the Aussie and NZ sections, I find them to be quite reliable, as they are based on news sources and basic facts. Please do not tag or remove them again; doing such shall be considered tendentious. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you to show this as verifiable if you want to retain it. --John (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did; I added specific references to sources specializing in the matter. I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:V, and do not know what your issue is. oknazevad (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet the clue was in the tags you removed. Here, I will make it really easy for you. What makes http://www.australianwhiskies.com a reliable source? What makes http://www.newzealandwhisky.com a reliable source? What are their fact-checking policies? Do many learned journals frequently reference their work? Here's a further scaffold to aid your understanding; what would stop me from registering a domain, say http://www.senegalwhisky.com, filling it with positive statements about the great whiskies they make in Senegal, then adding it to Wikipedia with that as a source? This is why we use reliable sources only; show me coverage on the BBC, the Guardian, CNN, or even better a reputable book or magazine. These are what we call reliable sources on Wikipedia; the ones you are adding look self-published. They won't do. If you need a week or whatever to find better ones, that's fine. But the stuff that is supported by weak sourcing is coming down, make no mistake about it. --John (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

They are news agrigators; from there one easily can find the sites' own sources for the information they present. It's how I found the Scotsman article that I used in the Australia section. In short, they show their own sources and are well referenced in that regard. That's why I judged it a reliable source for the purposes of this article. And I certainly do not appreciate the threat below. If you do not feel that the source is reliable enough, and I do, then we should seek a third opinion. Outright removal would make it the article less complete and comprehensive, a poor idea for an overview article, and is a detriment to the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If they are news aggregators that should be easy. Just pull out the original reliable sources that are being aggregated and pop them on the article. I certainly don't want to make the article less complete; but I do want to ensure that everything here meets verifiability requirements, and right now I am not convinced that everything does. --John (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have tagged the article accordingly. Anything that is still only supported by self-published sources one week from now will be removed. --John (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Took me longer than I thought but I cleaned out some of the worst self-promotion. Please, let's avoid letting it build up again. --John (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I see we've had another attempt to promote "Swedish whisky" and "South African whisky". Let's remember we need proper third-party sources here. --John (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

actual process

Would a paragraph or two detailing the actual process be useful? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/ny0g0a6Vo9Xz7DlB2TGcYI/Whisky-in-India.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Picture(s)

Just a minor detail; would it be possible to replace the picture with something else? I think the current one is kinda dark and boring. Perhaps even put up several pictures, of different types of whiskies?. Just a friendly suggestion!. Oyvindor 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done and Done, well at least 1 picture :) Superdude99

The picture implies a very large measure of (undiluted) whisky - not pro www.drinkaware.co.uk

Either reduce the size of the measure to a single measure of alcohol or add a caption - whisky with mixer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.108.153 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is there purely to demonstrate the colour and look of whisky, and to show the uninitiated reader exactly what whisky is - it is doubtful the image is of "whisky with a mixer", and thus the caption you propose is unsuitable. I don't think it is necessary to change the image to a smaller measure, or at all, as the article (or wikipedia in general, in that case) hardly 'encourages' binge drinking, and there is no reason to be pro- or anti-anything here - wikipedia is, after all, neutral. I doubt that an image of a dram that size would in any way affect the decisions of the average drinker. ABVS1936 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks wrong, it's far to large to be a glass of whiskey. If the colour needed to be shown, it should be done in a taller, thinner glass, although that wouldn't be a whiskey glass. Explosive Cornflake (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This whisky is on the rocks. That is disgraceful. The picture should be replaced with one of whisky served properly. 82.67.118.174 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - whisky and ice is an abomination 87.139.126.43 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Scotch"

This section Outside of Scotland the abbreviated term "Scotch" is usually used for "Scotch whisky". In Scotland the term "whisky" almost always refers to "Scotch whisky", and "Scotch" is rarely used by itself. was changed to Whilst the term "Scotch" is used for "Scotch whisky" in many country's, most English speaking country's use the term "whisky" to refer to "Scotch whisky", and "Scotch" is rarely used by itself. which was in turn removed by another editor Removed a line which said that the term "scotch" is rarely used. In my opinion it's a common term. This should at least be discussed. What's really needed is a source. I've put back the older phrase. Notinasnaid 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the original phrasing is that in most English speaking countries "Whisky" by itself almost always refers to "Scotch Whiskey". While the term "scotch" exists in most countries, it is rarely used apart from in a couple of countries like the Ireland and the USA. It is misleading/erroneous therefore to state "outside Scotland the abbreviated term "Scotch" is usually used for "Scotch whisky". Canderra 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The USA is the largest English speaking country in the world, and the term is used in American media and films. Everytime 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically India is the largest English speaking country in the world (in terms of population, else Canada in terms of size). The point I was trying to make however wasn't to claim that "hardly anyone calls it Scotch" or anything like that but to point out that most places call Scotch "whisky". Not just Scotland or even Britain. Canderra 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant in terms of native speakers. Everytime 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe, so did Canderra - English being one of the 23 official languages of India. Perhaps it would be most appropriate to use a phrase that illustrates the ubiquitous usage of 'whisky' to refer to scotch whisky, except where another, more local, form of whisky is prevalent (US bourbon, Irish whiskey ...). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.148.212 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Not sure what you mean by "native speakers". It is a vague concept. On the original point, there are many countries that use the term "Scotch" but there is no uniformity of usage, so it would be best to remove the "usually" and replace with "sometimes". PS. While "Scotch" can be used as a synonym for "Scotch whisky", "Scotch whisky" cannot properly be regarded as synonymous with "whisky", even if the e is left off. There are many non-Scotch whiskys (from Japan, all over Europe, South Africa, the Antipodes etc. etc. etc.) Buyo 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Though very far from the originating topic, the term "native speaking", likely, is questioning how much of the Indian population actually speaks English, as opposed to English being the "offical" language. Also, (a seperate "Scotch" topic is that the defination of "Scotch" differs from the "Whisky/Whiskey" page to the "Scotch_Whisky".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_speaking_world

FYI, the USA is actually the largest English speaking country in the world, both in terms of first language & additional language speakers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.112.194 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting section. I've never heard anyone use the word "scotch", except on films. When we say whisky, we mean stuff from Scotland, owt else needs qualifying.--SquidSix (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In Scotland and the North of England - Scotch is a type of dark beer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.11.9 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S. and Canada, "whisky" (by itself) definitely does not "almost always refer to 'Scotch whisky'", and I rather doubt it almost always refers to Scotch whisky in Ireland or India (or Japan) either, as those countries produce a lot of "whisky" themselves. In the U.S., the term "Scotch" (by itself) is certainly commonly used to refer to Scotch whisky, and "whisky" (by itself) seems much more likely to refer to Bourbon or Canadian or Irish or cheap blended whisky than to Scotch whisky (especially in the central U.S.). If someone in the U.S. wants to refer to Scotch whisky, I think they would usually say "Scotch" or "Scotch whisky". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to be very sceptical when you see an editor who doesn't know how to spell "countries" making claims about English vocabulary usage around the World. India is the country with the largest population in which English is an official language, sure, but it has very few native speakers so I wouldn't say it's the largest English speaking country in terms of population. As for what the term "whisk(e)y" refers to in the (actual) English-speaking world, it seems we probably need better sources. In Australia, though, any whisky can be called "whisk(e)y" and if you want to specifically refer to whisky from Scotland, you'd say/write "scotch" or "scotch whisky". Jimp 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Flavors

To me, the "bottom line" question about whiskey & other liquors is what gives their unique flavors. In a blind test, I can distinguish whiskey from rum from tequila. Most others can too. So what flavor components of whiskey/rum/tequila allow people to distinguish between them? This information should be most prominent in the wikipedia articles, IMHO. Rtdrury (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whiskey tastes the way it does primarily because of the way it is made. The original ingredients, malting, drying, fermentation, distillation, aging, dilution, further tinkering (e.g., filtering), the way it is served, and the food you've been eating all have effects. Not only does whiskey taste different from rum and tequila, but Laphroaig tastes different from Knob Creek, which tastes different from Hibiki. I'm not sure there's a whole lot we can say about all that, although it's certainly fundamental to the topic. I suppose we can look for reliable sources that provide tasting notes and ratings, and we already have some of that in various articles. I notice that the wine article has a "Tasting" section, and that there are articles about Wine tasting and Wine tasting descriptors. Similar concepts could be applied for whiskey, and perhaps we should try to do some work in that direction. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Origins of flavours

The Chemistry section lists four origins of the flavour of whiskey.

1. Flavours from distillation
2. Flavours from oak
3. Flavours and colouring from additives
4. Chill filtration

I wonder how far from complete this list is. No mention is made here of the smoky flavour obtained from the malting process which I'm pretty sure is important. JIMp _talk·cont 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved "The distinctive smoky flavour that can often be found in Scotch is due to the use of [[peat]] smoke to treat the malt." to its own Flavours from treating the malt subsection tweaking it a bit to "The distinctive smoky flavour found in various types of whisky, especially Scotch<!--single Islay malts particularly -->, is due to the use of [[peat]] smoke to treat the malt.". Some non-Scotch whiskies may also be smoky (maybe not very and not many but they do exist). Note that I've hidden single Islay malts particularly; firstly, since I haven't got the references on hand (unless you count the few bottles of the stuff sitting next to me), and secondly, I'm not sure whether this detail is needed. Jimp 10:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Whisky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523183816/http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/documents/scotch-whisky-exports-hit-record-level/ to http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/documents/scotch-whisky-exports-hit-record-level/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130507123559/http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk:80/news-media/media-press/publications/publication/2039/scotch-whisky-briefing-2013/ to http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/news-media/media-press/publications/publication/2039/scotch-whisky-briefing-2013/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131019085548/http://www.thewhiskybarrel.com/blog/post/scotch-whisky-exports-soar to http://www.thewhiskybarrel.com/blog/post/scotch-whisky-exports-soar
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dr.dk/Regioner/Bornholm/Nyheder/Bornholm/2009/05/05/05110016.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110926022000/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-12549581.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-12549581.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tennessee Whiskey"

The usage and topic of Tennessee Whiskey is under discussion, see talk:Tennessee Whiskey (song) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whisky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120402100139/http://www.swedishwhisky.se/english/skeppets.html to http://www.swedishwhisky.se/english/skeppets.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Whisky vs. whiskey

The Agreement between the European Community and Canada on trade in wines and spirit drinks seems to indicate that the term "whisky" (without an "e") is as valid for Canadian whisky as it is for Scotch. I've more or less reverted the first paragraphs of Spelling to reflect this, but I'm not so sure about Japanese whisk(e)y. -- CODOR 03:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Umm, as the article itself is at Whisky, shouldn't we have all other articles that are of indeterminate nationality use the same spelling? For example Category:Cocktails with whiskey, whiskey sour, etc. Should be spelled without the e, right? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Category:Whiskies now be Category:Whiskys? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

My sources (most quotably the Encyclopédie des vins et alcools, editions Laffont ; yes, that's a French book) says that "whisky" is the spelling for Scotch, Canadian stuff, and imitations thereof, most notably Japanese whisky (but also that made in France), while the spelling "whiskey" definitely applies to Irish and U.S.A. made liquor, nobody knows why usage differs, or why it goes one way in a given place. either way, the plural is "whiskies".--Svartalf 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be dismissed as some kind of Ameri-babble by the Europeans; but as an American I always think of "Whisky" as "Whiskey." I do not drink American whiskey, or bourbon either so I was not tainted by an avalanche of US whiskey bottles. Ah, hell, it might just be that I like Irish whiskey the most; but seeing the page titled whisky just seems strange. 67.173.240.92 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You say tomato, I say tomato etc. It might seem strange to you, but that's because most producers of whisky/whiskey in America use the spelling with the E. It seems strange to me when I see Americans using the words "color" and "theater", because I'm used to "colour" and "theatre". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

WTO says that whisky without an E is scottish. only scottish. nothing else. it does not apply to canadian anymore than chapagne applies to fizzy wine outside of the champagne region. ie - not at all. this page should properly reflect the actual legalities on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.78.131 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

My bottles of Canadian whisky indicate otherwise. ReverendG 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See my post above; there's an agreement in place between Canada and the EU that covers not only various countries' whisk(e)y but also champagne. (What it boils down to is, both Canadian and Scottish distilleries can call their product "whisky", but Canadian ones can't call theirs "Scotch", even if it's a similar product.) -- CODOR 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese whisky is also "whisky" not "whiskey" Buyo 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of English words spelled differently on either side of the Atlantic is a long one and includes (American spellings here) color, maneuver, aging, and center, yet no one seems to struggle with those words the way they do with whiskey. My solution is to spell it with an "e" (since I'm American) except when using a proper name (e.g., Johnnie Walker Scotch Whisky). Then I spell it the way the producer does. Easy.Cowdery 16:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A source I've run across cites many examples of both spellings in many countries. Legal wording aside, it is his opinion that either spelling is correct in any country since one can find an example of either spelling used by a distiller in that country. Who you gonna trust with this after all, lawyers and English majors or the people that actually make the product?

This is the text of the article:

Whiskey or whisky

Explanations of why whisky is spelled as it is (whisky versus whiskey) make up one of the most common myths about whisky. Why? Because they are so difficult to refute without a fair bit of research. So, mischievous people, wishing to appear knowledgeable, have just made up explanations and these have, over time, become the perceived wisdom on the subject. While they all make sense, none that I have read have any basis in fact.

I’ll go over the main explanations I have heard:

The Irish did not, as some would have us believe, add an ‘e’ to whisky to differentiate their whisky from the Scots’ because they (the Irish) thought their whisky was superior to Scotch. A few may have, but this never happened across the board, and when there were hundreds of distilleries in Ireland both spellings were used commonly. Later, when whisky distilling went through difficult times and almost every Irish distillery went bankrupt, the three remaining distilleries merged to form a single entity, adopting a single spelling. There is no evidence that the spelling with the ‘e’ was chosen for any particular reason. However, there are still plenty of full bottles of Irish whisky around with labels that spell whisky without the 'e'.

The idea that countries with an ‘e’ in their name spell whiskey with an 'e' does not hold up for French whisky made in France, Welsh whisky made in Wales, British whisky made in England and a whole raft of others, but the nmemonic works well for those just beginning their whisky journey. Legally, in Scotland Scotch whiskey is spelled with an 'e' - whiskey, but you never see this on the labels. Editorial decisions of the New York Times notwithstanding, and despite the certain indignant outcry from those who have accepted, uncritically, the above-noted perceived wisdom, American writers who write about Scotch whiskey are just as correct as those who drop the ‘e’.

As you undoubtedly are already aware there are at least five popular brands of whisky made and sold in the USA which use the whisky rather than the whiskey spelling on their labels. As well, there is absolutely no truth in the commonly-held belief that Americans use the ‘e’ spelling because of a predominantly Irish heritage. First, that heritage is greatly exaggerated, second, the famed Scotch-Irish (Scots-Irish) were in fact Scots who spent a couple of generations in Ireland then came to America. But they were Scots, not Irishmen. Third, the almost-exclusive use of the ‘e’ spelling in Ireland did not happen until the 1970's, way too late to influence American spellings.

Similarly, the supposition that Canada uses the whisky spelling because of a Scottish heritage is refuted by the fact that both spellings have been commonly used by Canadian whisky makers, bottlers and distillers. In Canada, we now seem to have settled on the no-e spelling but I can assure you this was not always the case. At least into the 1960's and probably much more recently than that we have used both spellings on our labels, and we still use both spellings in the press.

Here is an article I published a couple of years ago on the maltmaniacs web-site.

http://www.maltmaniacs.org/malt-109.html#0810

I have since done considerably more research on the matter and am more certain than ever of my position that either spelling is correct in any country (or more precisely that neither spelling is incorrect in any country), have more examples of whiskies, labels, distilleries, whisky-makers, and writers who are seemingly unaware of there being any distinction, and more photos of bottles with labels sporting a spelling that perceived wisdom and the New York Times style book would deem incorrect.

Davin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tudza (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite what people seem to think about the proper spelling in the United States, I am compelled to point out that the law of the United States uses the spelling "whisky" exclusively. There is no provision in the law for any other spelling to be allowed. That is also the dominant spelling in the law of Canada (although the Canadian law does say "Whisky or Whiskey" in one place). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: The government has since changed where that part of the law is found on the web. It is now here (part 5 of title 27 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations). I did find "whiskey" in it in one place – but that place has nothing to do with a discussion of the spelling, and appears to be simply a typo. I would also like to say that although the regulations don't contain any explicit provision for allowing other spellings, they also don't contain any explicit prohibition of other spellings (and since the other spelling is actually more common in the U.S., it's obviously allowed). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo

I don't like the photo as it shows whisky with ice, which is not a typical way to consume it in its original home. We should show it being served unadulterated as per tradition, in a proper glass. --John (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I realize many in my country (US) would not. This is actually the second time it is mentioned here. Honestly, I am surprised there is nothing in this article about the "ceremony" of whisk(e)y drinking. The cult of presentation is something that always comes up whenever someone finds out I drink Scotch. Like the term "dram" never being used once in this article is conspicuous... 24.218.3.184 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the article about whisky as a whole, not Scotch whisky, so the supposed "ceremonials" simply put don't apply, as other national varieties of whisky don't have the same myths and habits about them. American whisky is rarely called a "dram", for example. And to act as if only Scotch matters is so narrow minded as to be pretty insulting, actually. And around the world people drink whisky on the rocks. So the picture is very much valid, as it reflect what is, not some idea of what should be. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I dislike the ice too. The article is about whisky, not about drinks that include whisky or ways of serving whisky. If we want to illustrate whisky, we should keep the illustration simple and to the point. Including ice seems confusing and is also not the way most people who take a serious interest in the topic would drink it. A lot of people mix whisky with Coke too, but we wouldn't illustrate the whisky article with a picture of Jack and Coke. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Awards

If you go by how much discussion there is in this article about the awards given to each country's whiskies (e.g., search for the word "award"), you'd think that Taiwan, Sweden, and Australia are the leading whisky-producing countries in the world market. There is no mention of awards being given to Scottish, American, Irish, and Canadian whiskies. In fact it seems like the countries with the least significant whisky industries have the most discussion of awards. That doesn't seem appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat agree. On one hand, it's rather notable when a whisky from a country outside the traditional big four producers wins a major award. On the other hand, the emphasis here is rather WP:UNDUE, as it doesn't give the complete picture of those awards being few and far between. Sure, one group just gave a whisky of the year award to a Taiwanese whisky. Another gave it to Booker's Rye, a Jim Beam product. One of those gets mentioned here, another doesn't, because listing every time an American whiskey (or a Scotch, or Irish, or Canadian) gets an award would overwhelm the article. Trim them out as undue. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Whisky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125105734/http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Facts/History.html to http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Facts/History.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125105734/http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Facts/History.html to http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Facts/History.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=265802&area=%2Fbreaking_news%2Fbreaking_news__business%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219120702/https://www.beerbrewer.co.uk/2007/06/ to http://www.beerbrewer.co.uk/2007/06/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018025957/http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom/taste5.htm to http://www.wine-pages.com/guests/tom/taste5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Health Effects

Whiskey consumption has health effects. This is an important public health problem. I am attempting to add this to the whiskey article. Another editor is deleting these edits.

The alcohol in whiskey is no different than the alcohol in vodka, gin, rum, wine, or beer. The health effects of whiskey are not unique, and do not need to be called out, especially above the production process that defines the class of drinks. It's plainly WP:UNDUE, and clearly intended to push a POV, which fits with the rest of your contributions that very much look like you are here for only one purpose. Also, sign your posts. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The health effects of whiskey are not unique to whiskey. Most of the other alcoholic beverages include a "health effects" section. Your position that the health effects "do not need to be called out" does not seem to be consistent with good editing practice. I've made hundreds of edits on wikipedia, and even a cursory review of these edits will show that your assertions regarding my POV are demonstrably false. My POV is that wikipedia articles ought to provide useful information to wikipedia readers. Please revert your reversion of my edits.Sbelknap (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Im saying that whether the alcohol is drunk as whisky or any other form, it's the same alcohol, so this article does not need a specific section on health effects. Neither does any other alcoholic beverage article besides the main alcoholic drink article. Even if it were to be included, it does not need to be the third section, as that is far too prominent considering the non-uniqueness of the material. Also, more fidelity to the manual of styke would help. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

My POV is that a health section in an article about whiskey should have sources that specifically address the health effects of whiskey. Not an unsourced section (attempt 2) or a sction with non-specific sources towards just alcohol (attempt 1). The Banner talk 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the article specifically about whisky, not alcoholic drinks in general. It should not contain over-broad material not specifically about whisky. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

At a minimum, a sentence about ethanol's adverse health consequences, with a link to wikipedia articles on ethanol and health seems appropriate. Is that acceptable to you?Sbelknap (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is the same as writing in every article about planes that you run the risk of being shot down. At best, a single link to Alcohol (drug), will be enough. The Banner talk 22:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The analogy to planes seems specious and unpersuasive. Can you provide some logical reason why the health effects of whisky ought to be omitted from this article? Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that this would be of interest to many readers. There are also health-related issues that are specific to whisky. It would be silly to discuss those in the whisky article while omitting mention of the adverse effects of drinking ethanol. Sbelknap (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If there are health issues specific to whiskey, I assume you have the sources to back up that. But those sources should address whiskey specifically. But up to know, your claims are far to vague. The Banner talk 05:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Routine use of airplanes is almost always safe. The available evidence suggests that routine use of whisky does not improve health and (probably) harms health. Thus, the analogy between airplanes and whisky seems specious to me. I propose that the following be added to the whisky article:

The main active ingredient of whisky is alcohol, and therefore, the health effects of alcohol apply to whisky. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that moderate ethanol consumption brought no mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention from ethanol consumption. A systematic analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease study found that consumption of ethanol increases the risk of cancer and increases the risk of all-cause mortality, and that the level of ethanol consumption that minimizes disease is zero consumption. Some studies have concluded that drinking small quantities of alcohol (less than one drink in women and two in men) is associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and early death. Some of these studies lumped former ethanol drinkers and life-long abstainers into a single group of nondrinkers, hiding the health benefits of life-long abstention from ethanol.

Whisky also contains relatively higher amounts of congener (alcohol)s than other distilled alcoholic beverages, (e.g., vodka), which may increase the health risks associated with whisky consumption. Sbelknap (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, an absolute routine flight, except that it was shot down... The Banner talk 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nearly all of those who routinely fly on airplanes have no health consequences. Nearly all of those who routinely consume whisky *do* have health consequences. Your analogy fails. Some readers of the whisky article will find a (brief) section on the health effects of whisky to be interesting and useful. This section ought to have a brief description of the health effects of ethanol with a link to more detailed information in another article or articles. There ought to then be a description of the whisky-specific health effects of whisky. It seems unreasonable to omit a brief mention of the health effects of ethanol (which is the most important toxin in whisky) but to include a discussion of the health effects of other components of whisky. Sbelknap (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

But as stated before: please come with sources about the health risk of whiskey. The Banner talk 14:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

These statements to me seem to be saying the same thing:

• "only a small portion consisting of traditional malt whisky, usually about 10 to 12 percent"
• "Ninety percent of the whisky consumed in India is molasses-based".

If this is talking about two different things, maybe the wording can be changed to clarify. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think it is trying to talk about two different issues (the percentage of true whisky in a blend, and the percentage of the market that is true whisky versus molasses products), but I think both of them are probably false. I looked at the cited Mail & Guardian article, and it doesn't seem to say anything about that. I haven't checked the NYT article due to its paywall. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Its definitely two different issues. The first is about the composition of the spirit known as "Indian whisky", the second about the popularity of that spirit in the Indian market. That latter figure is firmly sourced in the Beverage Daily reference, and also mentioned in the Mail & Guardian source, so I'm 100% confident in its accuracy. The first figure, which is stating that a typical bottle labeled as "whisky" in India is actually a blend of neutral spirits fermented and distilled from molasses with about 10% give or take of actual malt whisky is I believe accurate. While I can't access the WSJ (not NYT) reference at the moment (trying to find the account number for our print subscription so I can get past the paywall), I'm confident it's accurate, as I've seen Indian whisky sold in the US, but bearing the label "spirit whisky", which, according to American whiskey regulations, is a blend of a neutral spirit base with at least 5% whiskey, but less than 20% whiskey (which would be a "blended whiskey").

Oh, and while I was at it, I ditched the casual, flippant, prejudicial, overly close to the source first sentence. Just lousy. Frankly, it was editorializing and terrible. oknazevad (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see what the difference is but if you both agree they're different I'll go along. I also don't see what the problem was with that first sentence, as long as it's supported by a source (I didn't check). But I'm ok with leaving it out, especially since Indian whiskey isn't the same as what the rest of the world calls "whiskey". Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

By country

Any (reliable) production figures, by country?

Google tells me Scotland, Ireland, India, USA, all lead - depending on the site.

MBG02 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

History

The first paragraph in "History" is not about the history of whisky, but of the history of distillation in general. In fact, the word whisky doesn't even fall in this chapter. I suggest removing that content from this entry. Notice that whisky was first mentioned in 1405, whether or not people distilled perfumes and other things in the 3rd century AD is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.210.162 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; as one of the first/oldest distilled beverages, some level of coverage of distillation in general is needed. Especially considering the etymological for runner of the term "whisky" was a general term referring to any distilled spirits historically. oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The word whiskey/whisky comes from the Irish word uisge, The oldest evidence for whiskey comes from Ireland. This whole article is ridiculous, by the same logic any beer on Wikipedia should have a history of beer and the origins of that particular brand of beer kept ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.37.250 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You missed the point that Classical Gaelic was once spoken both in Ireland and Scotland. The Banner talk 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Something out of place on the 'See also' section of the article?

The 'See also' section of this article contains what looks like an out of place piece of text (#Whiskey). Xboxsponge15 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a section link. When placed on a page in double square brackets, it jumps the reader to that section. When appended to a wiki link to another article, as is the case here, it jumps to that section of the linked article. Here it's directing the reader to the section specifically about cocktails made with whisky, which presumably a reader coming from the article on whisky would want to read about the most. oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to reorder list of regional/national whiskeys

I think that ordering the regional/national types of whiskey historically (i.e. where it was first thought to have been made to where it was most recently made) rather than alphabetically would better illustrate whiskey's story. Any thoughts?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the purpose of the History section, which, in an article of this importance, is woefully inadequate. Listing the types of whiskeys in alphabetical order is straightforward. Sláinte! Hammersbach (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hammersbach,
I know that the alphabetic order is straightforward, but as what we've got here is more or less a list of whiskys, if we were to implement the chronological ordering WP protocol it could result in a much better overall article, as it would reflect whisky's actual story (i.e. its geographical movement and development). The alphabetical ordering unfortunately has the effect of overriding and obscuring this.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the list of whiskeys, as currently presented in this article, is to describe the various styles of the whiskeys. Reading the section on each of the different types show little, if any, discussion of their relative histories. Reordering them in a chronological fashion in their present state would do nothing to explain or clarify the history of whiskey’s geographical movement and development. Even if we were to rewrite each to include historical information, I do not believe that a rearranged list is the proper vehicle in which to tell the whole of whiskey’s actual story. I still feel that the correct place to discuss this is in the History section, and that it should be done in a narrative rather than list manner. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be too much of a snob, but there are countries that have contributed significantly to the history and culture of whiskey, then there are countries that have been making it for a decade or 2. It seems a bit odd to include England, Finland, et cetera with the United States, Scotland, or Japan. I think it makes sense to list countries with significant contribution in development of style, or at least sales volume, then a listing of countries significance... this article reads borderline trivial in nature, and I know that's not the intention. 01:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)~

If sticking with the alphabetical ordering, then it should be corrected to have Mexican after Japanese.