Talk:Kentucky Gentleman

Merging suggestion
Can someone more experienced at merging please make due with this merger, there seems to be no objection and the page has become target of recent vandalism. WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Container sizes
I took out the part about container sizes. Yes, cracked.com says it's sold in "pint" sizes, but in the US a "pint" of liquor is 375 mL, not 16 fluid ounces. Rather than try to explain this I think it's better to remove this as it doesn't really add much. It's also not true, see for example. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian ban
Re: "it has been suggested that the importation ban on Kentucky Gentleman should be viewed in the context..." I don't see this in the source. Who is making this suggestion? Also, is the "Barton 1792 Distillery" the same as the Buffalo Trace distillery? Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The cited source (Yahoo) says (in its first sentence) that the banning of Kentucky Gentleman is "adding to a growing list of products Russia has banned since the West imposed new sanctions over Moscow's support of rebels in Ukraine," which I believe supports that statement. There are also lots of other sources that can be located for this information (although it may take a bit of effort). Yes, I believe the Barton distillery is the same as the Buffalo Trace distillery, although I think that is worth double-checking. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to a quick web search, the Barton 1792 distillery is in Bardstown, and the Buffalo Trace distillery is in Frankfort, which would mean they are two different places. I checked several articles about the Russian action, and they all seem to refer to the Barton distillery, not the Buffalo Trace distillery. I therefore changed the article to reflect that. Thanks for noticing that! —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy because it seems weasely. Can you take a quick look at WP:WEASEL and see if you think I'm being overly cautious? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to add a couple more citations to make it more obvious that what the article is saying is found in various places. However, as the guideline says, such expressions are "not automatically weasel words" as long as it is clear what is being stated is not our own opinion or synthesis but is rather something well supported by reliable sources. We "may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, I've never tried this stuff, but I'm surprised they're allowed to call it "bourbon." It sounds vile. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it's a higher quality product than the company's Old Thompson brand, although I'm not saying I'm going to run out and buy a half-gallon jug of it anytime soon. This product appears to be formulated to (just barely) meet the minimum requirements for calling it a (blended) "bourbon whiskey", whereas Old Thompson can't legally be called "bourbon whiskey" but can still (just barely) be called a (blended) "whiskey". Anyhow, there are now four reliable sources cited to support that sentence (none of which cite each other as their source of information). To me, that seems sufficient to avoid an accusation of unattributed weasel-wording. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)