User talk:Cowdery

Welcome message
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --rogerd 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Whisky versus Whiskey and related topics
After realizing who you were, I wondered what you might think of the comment that I just made on the Talk:Whisky page. For your convenience, I quoted it below:
 * 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).

You might also find some of my other recent article edits (Special:Contributions/BarrelProof) somewhat interesting, and I'm sure that with your vastly superior knowledge, you could probably find flaws in them. Incidentally, I've been adding some references to things that you wrote on your blog.

—BarrelProof (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops. Now I see that you have already written extensively on the whisky/whiskey topic, and have said that you're rather tired of it. Sorry for bringing it up again. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm only just seeing this. While the spelling used in the U.S. regs is, indeed, whisky, there is nothing in the regs -- nothing -- to indicate or even suggest that whisky is the preferred or only approved spelling. That is an inference on your part and it is wrong. There is no provision in the law for any preferred or approved spelling of any kind. And, obviously, the TTB regularly approves both spellings and considers them to have an identical meaning. Cowdery (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you for responding. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Corn whiskey and charred barrels
Regarding the edit that you just made to the American whiskey article: I note that the relevant C.F.R. text clause says
 * "if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125° proof in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood."

I suppose that I should take it on faith that you're right, but I think that whoever wrote that part of the definition should be taken out behind the woodshed for a switching, because it seems rather ungrammatical, and the sequence of "and" and "or" and "not" constructions in the sentence seems impossible to parse into a clear logical construction.

Studying those words, I suppose your interpretation is
 * "if stored in oak containers, then (stored at (NOT (more than 125° proof)) in ((used) OR ((uncharred new oak containers) AND (NOT (subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood)))))."

But mine is
 * "if stored in oak containers, then (stored at (NOT (more than 125° proof)) in (((used) OR (uncharred new oak containers)) AND (NOT (subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood))))"

—BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You can interpret it however you want, but that's not how the TTB interprets it. A used barrel is a used barrel, regardless if it was charred before use, and in fact when Heaven Hill ages Mellow Corn (the only aged corn whiskey from a major producer that is on the market) they do it in used bourbon barrels which, naturally, were charred before use. Maybe you can argue how it should be interpreted but I'm describing how it is interpreted.Cowdery (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably should point out that 'interpretation' is beside the point, as that's not our job as Wiki contributors. Therefore, I have changed it to the actual wording of the rule. 08:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it from the standpoint of legal construction, and agreeing that it's probably not very good writing, I think the idea is to first define the container as oak, then define the proof, then further define the wood as limited to used or new uncharred but not new charred, then further to forbid any treatment with charred wood. Although I'm an attorney I'm not an authority on legal construction, but that's how it strikes me.Cowdery (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Daniel's
Hello. I wonder if I could ask you to please take a look at the recent edit history for Jack Daniel's. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I started to look at it and decided it isn't worth the trouble. No offense, I just don't want to get into a pissing contest with Jack fanatics.Cowdery (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I admire your self-restraint. Incidentally, I've recently gotten into some historical issues for the Elijah Craig article as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

KBD distilling?
It looks like KBD did some actual distilling in January, according to Drew Kulsveen on Twitter? (And filled a barrel on Jan. 27th in honor of Thomson Willett?) See the photos posted on Jan 26 and 27 at http://twitter.com/#!/bbnboy (http to t.co/YE3U1Hk3 and t.co/JwxAGxcD). On the 26th, he posted the first picture and said "Last batch of Bourbon for the day. Distilling Rye tomorrow", and on the 27th he posted the 2nd picture and said "Happy birthday grandfather, here's to you." —BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding, although I haven't yet seen it myself. I hear good things from people who have been there, including Dave Pickerell, who is a renowned distiller (I'm not a distiller).Cowdery (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

History of bourbon
Dear Sir. In reading the lede paragraph of the Bourbon whiskey article I was immediately struck by the intrusive claim that bourbon got its name from New Orleans rather than Bourbon County, Virginia. Clicking on the citation's link it became clear the claim was the result of what appears to be an idiosyncratic interpretation of the beverage's history by a "bourbon historian" interviewed for an article in Smithsonian magazine. That latter name alone gives it undue weight, regrettably, as the interviewee bases his claim in significant part on the notion that a pair of Frenchmen arrived in New Orleans from Cognac, France “...Knew that if Kentuckians put their whiskey into charred barrels they could sell it to New Orleans’ residents, who would like it because it tastes more like cognac or ‘French brandy’.” I kid you not. (And no matter that Cognac is aged in uncharred French oak....).

You have the resume to displace this pish-posh with more grounded content; I would only end up in an edit war if I tried. May I ask you to please step in and rescue the bourbon article from it? Thank you. Yours, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)