Talk:Rum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Rum was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 17, 2006
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Peer review Rum has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Rum has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] old comments

Havana Club Surely Havana Club should get a mention of famous rum brands as it is generally accepted by afficionados as one of the worlds finest rums and is certainly the bartenders' rum of choice in the UK's best bars. I think the list of famous Rums should be limited to the 5 most famous (or so). To do this we need some sources, as I suspect the current list is not a correct representation.

Then the Puerto Rican rum list should be replaced with a universal rum list, perhaps indexed by country.

[edit] Merge with Cachaça

I cannot see any significant difference between cachaça and rum, other than the country of manufacture. Thus I propose to merge [[cachaça] into this article. Objections?
Jorge Stolfi 06:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can't see the necessity of that. Even though the beverages are largely the same, they are still considered different and deserve their own articles. I object strongly.--Dittaeva 07:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, please reconsider. I can see at least seven good reasons why:

  • So that people (like me) who thought that they were different beverages learn that they aren't. (This is what encyclopaedias are for...)
  • So that instead of two incomplete and partially duplicated explanations of how the thing is made etc., one can have a better, single one.
  • So that drinkers who know and appreciate one of the products will learn that they have more alternatives.
  • So that we can have a single list of brands sorted by type, instead of two partial ones.
  • So that connaisseurs have a place to compare rums with cachaças: ("Bacardi 's aroma is about as asymptotic as Velho Barreiro 's, but its pre-aftertaste is definitely bluer and less hypergolic.")
  • So that readers get a broad world view of the subject, rather than two narrow national views.

And more importantly:

  • Since they are the same beverage, the translation of cachaça into English is "rum", and by Wikipedia rules the article about it should be titled "rum".

Having separate articles for rum and cachaça would be like having separate articles for "beer" and "birra", or "dog" and "perro".
Jorge Stolfi 17:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

  • So that people (like me) who thought that they were different beverages learn that they aren't. (This is what encyclopaedias are for...)
Well if you read up on the two articles and the rest of the internet, you will find (at least I found) that yes they are very similar, and some consider cachaça a rum variety, but still there are differences. The cachaça article does not state that cachaça is a rum variety and even if it was, why shouldn't it have its own article? Some even think that both rum and cachaça are brandy varieties, but even if it was the case I would not suggest to merge all article about "liqour distilled from wine or other fermented fruit juice".
I think the main differences between the two drinks are:
  1. Rum is usually made from molasses, cachaça usually fresh sugarcane juice.
  2. Rum is both white and dark, meaning fresh and stored on oak barrels, cachaça is almost never stored on barrels at all.
  3. cachaça only comes from Brazil, Rum comes from all over the world.
  • So that instead of two incomplete and partially duplicated explanations of how the thing is made etc., one can have a better, single one.
Maybe the cachaça article could have link to the making of rum part of the rum article? Instead of having this long discussion we could also be improving both articles, and with good links they need not duplicate each other.
  • So that drinkers who know and appreciate one of the products will learn that they have more alternatives.
I have no problem with a cachaça section in the rum article. The cachaça article already mentions that it is very similar to rum in the first paragraph. You certainly do not need to merge the articles to do achieve this.
  • So that we can have a single list of brands sorted by type, instead of two partial ones.
We can have as many lists as we want and they should not be in the articles themselves (they should only include prominent examples IMHO). If you want a [List over rum and cachaça brands] go ahead and make it.
  • So that connaisseurs have a place to compare rums with cachaças: ("Bacardi 's aroma is about as asymptotic as Velho Barreiro 's, but its pre-aftertaste is definitely bluer and less hypergolic.")
This is an encyclopedia, not a connaisseurs review... Anyhow, I don't see how you cant't do that in the to respective articles.
  • So that readers get a broad world view of the subject, rather than two narrow national views.
This is a temporary problem solved by improving the articles, not discussing a merge.
  • Since they are the same beverage, the translation of cachaça into English is "rum", and by Wikipedia rules the article about it should be titled "rum".
Don't know which dictionary you used but Google won't translate it, Systran doesn't translate it, Freetranslation translates it to "white rum" which is not the same as rum, and Worldlingo doesn't translate it. While I'm not aware of this "rule" although I'm shure there is a policy like that, it probably says more than just that any foreignword that can translate into an english word should be listed under the english one. Anyway, it isn't that simple!
  • Having separate articles for rum and cachaça would be like having separate articles for "beer" and "birra", or "dog" and "perro".
No, its more like having separate articles about Whiskey and Vodka which I am shure we have. AFAIK both contemporary vodka and whiskey are largely made from wheat, and while whiskeys are often stored on barrels for many years, vodka is not.
Finally, I do not have anything against writing about cachaça in the rum article and vice versa, but we should keep both. The best way to improve on them is by editing, not this discussion. ---Dittaeva 21:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Reply

Dittaeva, I think that your reply shows some common misconceptions that merging the articles should clarify:

Rum is usually made from molasses, cachaça usually fresh sugarcane juice.

It was me who wrote "from sugarcane juice" in that article, before I found out that molasses are commonly used as well.

Rum is both white and dark, meaning fresh and stored on oak barrels, cachaça is almost never stored on barrels at all.

Definitely false. Cheap cachaça (like cheap rum) is white and bottled right away, but superior brands (of which there are legion) are dark and aged in oak (carvalho) barrels, sometimes up to 150 years (!). Just try 'cachaça carvalho' on Google.

cachaça only comes from Brazil, Rum comes from all over the world.

That is indeed what many Brazilians think (and apparently what the cachaça producers union would like the world to think), but it is wrong.

The cachaça article does not state that cachaça is a rum variety

Because that article was written by someone who (like me) did not know that they are in fact the same.

and even if it was, why shouldn't it have its own article?

If it was a special variety, yes; but it is just the same thing made in a different country.

some even think that both rum and cachaça are brandy varieties

That is a straw man; obviously brandy is different because it is made from a different staring material which gives it different flavor etc.. (But there is a page for alcoholic beverages which covers both and many others.)

The cachaça article already mentions that it is very similar to rum

Again it was me who wrote that sentence (the previous verion said "some people consider cachaça as a rum ..." followed by an observation that it was not vodca (!)). That was before I realized that it is not just similar, it is the same thing.

Don't know which dictionary you used but Google won't translate it, Systran doesn't translate it, Freetranslation translates it to "white rum" which is not the same as rum, and Worldlingo doesn't translate it.

It only shows how poor those machine translation services are. (BTW many of them use the same software.) There are many words, more basic than cachaça, that Google won't translate, e.g. cozida = "cooked", xícara="cup", ralada="grated". Anyway those services are not supposed to be experts on beverages. The one which said "white rum" got closer but the dictionary maker obviously knew only the cheap caçhaça (pinga in Brazil) and not the best stuff.

While I'm not aware of this "rule" although I'm shure there is a policy like that, it probably says more than just that any foreignword that can translate into an english word should be listed under the english one. Anyway, it isn't that simple!

Well, that is indeed the rule, and it applies even to personal names; see for instance John IV of Portugal or Christopher Columbus. Although the rule is often violated by contributors (mostly out of misplaced nationalism), those are mistakes that should be fixed eventually. Using a foreign name is allowed when there is no good translation (farofa, Candomblé) but not otherwise ("collard greens" not couve).

its more like having separate articles about Whiskey and Vodka which I am shure we have. AFAIK both contemporary vodka and whiskey are largely made from wheat, and while whiskeys are often stored on barrels for many years, vodka is not.

This is another straw man: vodka and whiskey are clearly different because one is always distilled to high proof and is practically just ethanol+water, the other always has lower proof and retains many other components. Not so with rum and cachaça: the processes are the same and the final products have the same range of compositions.

I think that an encyclopaedia should teach the facts as clearly as possible, and not simply reproduce common misconceptions just because people are used to them (or because some businessmen think that it suits their business).

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 01:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS. Before you ask, I am not inventing the business interests. Check this quote from [1]:

Make no mistake, the Brazilian sugar cane-derived "cachaca" which the Puerto Rican rum lobby has successfully kept out of the US rum market as a non-rum, is now taking full advantage of the situation - the Brazilian government has declared cachaca a generic name and the success of its cocktail, caipirinha, promises a bright future for that cane distillate.

It seems that the US customs barriers, inspired by the rum lobby, would cost Brazilian cachaça producers US$0.19/liter extra if cachaça were considered a "rum". Therfore, in order to benefit from the "non-rum" stamp, cachaça for export to the US has indeed to be made only from juice, without molasses. However several domestic brands are still made with molasses.

[edit] Solution

It seemes that you have researched this subject quite a lot more than me, and I must appear as some kind of sour maggot;) You have convinced me, but first I'd like to say that some do infact consider it all brandy (reference in google link I gave), and from my ignorance I did consider my whiskey / vodka comparison better.

Now that we have agreed I suggest that you go ahead with the merge, and make cachaca a section in the rum article to where the cachaca article redirects.

Happy editing and thank you for your patience! ---Dittaeva 11:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RUM vs CACHACA vs GRAPPA vs PISCO

I would like to note that Cachaca is very different to Rum. Firstly, Cachaca also makes use of Ground corn to aid in fermentation, a practice not applied to the production of Rum. Cachaca is also aged or rested in woods other than oak, although oak is also used. The Brasillian Government is in the process of having cachaca trademarked worldwide as a unique spirit to differentiate it from rum. The comment was also made that Cachaca is a form of Brazillian rum when in fact is more commonly referred to as a sugar cane Brandy. When the argument is used that Cachaca is the same as rum, then the same argument would apply to Pisco VS Grappa. Most North American whiskies could then also be argued to be the same as Scotch Grain whiskies. The ingredients used are the same, but the method of production differs, thereofor creating unique products. This is the same situation between Rum and Cachaca. Should this explaination not be sufficient, look at vodka for instance. Most vodkas are made from grain, however Chiroc is made from grapes. Should it therefor be placed in the same bracket as grappa (or pisco for that matter)? Think about it.

[edit] ===Historical References===

Deleted last section:

After his death at the Battle of Trafalgar, the body of Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson was temporarily interred in a cask of rum while his body was transported from Trafalgar to Gibraltar and then London.

Urban legends reference pages says it was brandy and wine, not rum. [2] Ellsworth 22:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rum Vs Cachaca Vs Grappa Vs Pisco

Ever checked the Spanish page? There it is alleged that the first rum was distilled in Granada, after the "reconquista".--Josephusimperator 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I also notice that the Spanish page is unsourced. While it is possible that Granada produced an early rum (the Spanish had sugarcane and access to distillation technology), no one has produced a reliable source to support the claim of rum production in Granada. --Allen3 talk 20:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stroh

The article says (in rather inexpert wording):

Stroh, often considered as rum but it is not due to the addition of aroma which is the main reason why stroh is not a rum.

However, the article discusses Flavoured rums, and the article stroh calls it a rum. Can anyone clarify this situation? Guettarda 16:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The reason Stroh is not a rum is basically a legal one. The term rum is closely regulated in many juristictions and does not allow extra flavor elements to be added. Terms like Flavored Rum or Spiced Rum do not have the same legal limitations [3] Allen3 23:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] featured article candidate???

I think this article is getting close to being a candidate for Featured Article status. One thing is needs a few quality pictures or illustrations. I am imaging a maybe a light and a dark rum side by side in shot glasses and maybe another image of the bottles of a few different brands. Anyone have these things at home they can photograph? ike9898 19:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I have some that I could photo, but I ordered my new camera on Sunday, and it'll be a few days before it arives. In the mean time, list the article on Wikipedia:Peer review for a few days, to get more eyes looking at it before going to WP:FAC. Gentgeen 20:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Listed on peer review, as suggested. ike9898 21:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I've taken some photographs, and will upload them to commons tonight. I'll post a link when they're up, and someone can decide where to put them in the article. Gentgeen 17:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well-known brands

I propose moving this list of rum brands into a seperate article, but wanted to see if anyone else had strong feelings on the issue. The problems I see with the list is constitutes well-known versus non-well-known is inherently a POV definition with strong regional bias. If this article is ever to achieve FA status, then moving this list to a seperate article appears to be a prerequisite. --Allen3 talk 14:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "National drink of the Caribbean"

While this may come from a cited source, it makes no sense to me. How can you have a "national drink" of a region with ~20 national entities (plus another dozen with Caribbean coastlines)? Guettarda 02:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • In my trips to the islands, every one tended to consider rum its national drink. At the same time many islanders I have met consider the locally produced rum as the only rum worth drinking. Yes, it is a little paradoxical, but it does express the regional influence of the spirit. --Allen3 talk 02:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree with the underlying assertion (though, of course, while the other islands think their rum is the best, the truth is that Trinidad rum is the best:)). The problem is that there is no Caribbean "nation", so the final statement is factually inaccurate. Guettarda 02:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to soften the wording some, but in the end the line requires a little bit of poetic interpretation. As to which rum is the best, at least you did not claim Newfoundland Screech as the winner (the story as I was told is the Newfoundlanders sent the worst available salt cod to Jamaica in exchange for rum, the Jamaicans naturally returned the favor with the worst available rum). --Allen3 talk 03:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial coloring and flavoring agents

An anonymous contributor has recently added a paragraph claiming that many beverages sold as "rum" are actually a mixture of ethanol, water, coloring agents and flavorings and some "real" rums, especially the cheaper ones, contain artificial coloring and flavoring agents. I am aware that some producers may add sugar syrups to produce a smoother taste, and the article mentions caramel (cooked sugar) as a coloring agent. But neither sugar or caramel are normally considered artificial. Does anyone have any examples or references to support the recently added information? --Allen3 talk 20:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no response to this request for verification of the claims, I am removing the paragraph in question. --Allen3 talk 12:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rum punch recipe

I removed the rum punch recipe. If someone wants to move it to WikiCookBook (here or here), it can be retrieved from the previous page version here. Rd232 talk 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] XXX RUM

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE AND ORIGIN OF WORDS 'XXX' IN RELATION TO RUM

I'm no expert on this but as far as I know the three "X"s were branded on barrels of liquor to show that duty had been paid, in the UK's case to either the Inland Revenue or HM Customs and Excise.
The number of "X"s represented the amount of duty paid, with "XXX" being the highest. The duty-due was judged on the alcoholic strength of the liquor and so strong drinks like rum would have attracted the highest taxation, hence the barrels would have been branded with three crosses using a hot iron. 'Lesser' drinks would have had either one or two crosses on the casks, being taxed at a lower rate. Because of this, the three "XXX"s came to be associated with strongly alcoholic drinks.
There's also an Australian beer called Castlemaine XXXX where the four "X"s are supposed to represent a higher 'strength' than the official "XXX", but I don't think four "XXXX"s were ever used for duty-purposes, the four "XXXX"s being purely a marketing 'gimmick'. Ian Dunster 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body-in-the-rum story

A number of news sources have published reports similar to this BBC report claiming a group of builders found a body in a rum cask after drinking the contents:

"Builders find body in rum barrel", BBC News, 5 May 2006. 

Based on a report appearing at MSNBC, the stories originated with a Reuters report that has since been retracted:

"Body-in-the-rum story had us over a barrel", MSNBC, 9 May 2006. 

As a result of the retraction, the original stories no longer appear to reliable sources and the information obtained from the original story has been removed. --Allen3 talk 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

After reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria, I have declined GA status for this article for the reasons listed below. I do see clear potential in the Rum article for Good Article status and even Featured article status. I wholeheartedly encourage the editors to resubmit for GA review after the concerns below have been addressed. To aid in the review, I compared this article to the Feature Article quality of the Tea article and the Good Article Quality of Milk and Riesling.
1. It is well written. - Pass The article is written with compelling prose with no glaring violation of WP:MOS. All topics of technical complexity are either explained in the article or supported with a Wiki-link.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

  • The article has several key details that need some source of reference citation for the benefit of WP:V, especially in the Origins of the name section.
  • The lack of in-line citation as laid out in WP:CITE makes verification difficult and would be a neccessary addition. (Particularly to the history section). I see the "in note" cites on the edit page but it is rather cumbersome and silly to have to keep clicking "edit" in order to view a source for a particular claim.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

  • There is sense that comes across after reading the article that there is more to the story. Areas which I feel need expansion is "Rums Impact on the Slavery". There is brief mention but there is so much more that can be written. Another area that is missing is the perception of Rum in popular culture.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

  • The article follows a NPOV tone without showing an imbalance to any particular regional variety or style of rum.

5. It is stable- Weak Pass

  • There have been some notable changes to the article since it's nomination on August 21st (especially in this past week). In reviewing them, while signifigant, I would ultimately categorize the bulk of them as cosmetic in nature which is why I gave this section a weak pass

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - PASS

  • The article has enough images to satisified GA criteria, however for FA Consideration I would look into finding suitable additions that could be beneficial as visual illustration. For instance, a chart of some sort with mention of Rum consumption or production (especially among the Caribbean countries in a sort of historical context). Under Production methodology you have a photo of sugarcane which relates to a degree to rum through the production of molasses but as a reader I would be more curious about how the rum looks through the fermentation or distillation process. Maybe a photo of some of the equipement used. Even a photo of molasse would add a little bit more to that section then the sugarcane photo.

If there is anything else that I can do to be of assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name "rum"

The article says the name's origin is unknown, and cites relatively recent possibilities...then goes on to claim that the Malays have been making "brum" for thousands of years. Um...maybe that's where the name comes from? xod 02:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues with adding this theory to the article. First is the generic issue of verifiability: no reliable sources list the connection as a possible source for the name. Next, brum is a fermented drink while rum is distilled. Finally the term rum was in use for over a century by the time the English created their first colony on the Malay Peninsula, leaving no opportunity for the linguistic migration from Malay to English. --Allen3 talk 03:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You never know... The British did bring Breadfruits from the Pacific to the Caribbean islands. Now they grow wild all over the Caribbean. CaribDigita 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this connection is that breadfruit were not introduced to the Caribbean until the late 18th Century while the term "rumme" was in use by the mid 17th Century. --Allen3 talk 22:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You may not need to find a direct linkage between the Caribbean and the Maylays. As far as the British Caribbean goes sugar cane was brought to Barbados by accident, it was the skill brought in by Dutch-Jews, who had been living in Brazil but were fleeing religious persecustion. See (History of the Jews in Latin America). They moved to Barbados around the mid-1650's and as the story goes they urged the planters of Barbados to switch from Tobacco and Cotton to the crop of sugar cane. The planters did switch since Barbadian farmers were being slammed by competition from the American colonies. The island's sugar was being snapped up by the British who needed the sugar for teas and other items. So quickly more British colonies were switched over to sugar cane and it took off across the Caribbean there-after.

So this means all that needs to be established would be a link between the Malays and Brazil. This link could have been easy since at the time the dutch also had control over Guyana and Suriname in South America so it *could* have entered Brazil through those countries. That merely would have been a move from the Dutch East Indies to the Dutch West Indies if that were the case. CaribDigita 23:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Limke"?

The part on flavored rums says "... and limke which is a lime rum found in Sweden". Never heard of it, gets no obvious hits via Google, and is not listed at Systembolagets site. And limke isn't a Swedish word, where it would be awkward to pronounce. Sounds more like Flemish or something. I seriously doubt this thing exists. JöG 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on rum in the Caribbean

[edit] Rum v. Guaro

Since they're both from sugar cane, this article should mention how rum differs from guaro. (and vice versa.) Tempshill 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Alcoholic Rum

Does non-alcoholic rum exist? If not, is it even possible to make? The S 03:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is as much a legal definition question as a technical question. There are commercially available extracts and flavorings that would allow for a non-alcoholic rum flavored beverage. Many legal jurisdictions however have barriers, such as a minimum alcohol content, to what may be labeled as rum. As a result, while a non-alcoholic rum flavored beverage can be produced it is often not lawful to label it as a type of rum. --Allen3 talk 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Seems there is a problem with the external links. User 68.155.120.99 keeps removing a link to Refined Vices and calling it spam. Personally I don't know how this is spam and is different from all the other external links there are. The site provides information about production of rum and history of rum. The site also has rum reviews and a discussion board.

User 68.155.120.99: Be aware of the Three revert rule when reverting. Would you kindly respond to this message and give your reasons why you are doing this? Count Silvio (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I neither know whether it is "right" to have the link, nor care, but anyone continuing to just blandly revert back and forth on the inclusion of the link is barrelling towards a block for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This wiki entry is related to rum. That website is not specifically related to just rum, and the most that it offers are a grand total of three rum reviews. The site itself is thus not notable, the other sites listed as links are clearly authority sites with much more content. Put simply, there are more than enough review sites presently available that a link to a site with three reviews isn't needed. The fact that the site is being continually added by it's owner adds to the fact that it is link spam. Wikipedia is not a link repository. 68.155.120.99 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. What about the history and production page? Did you take a look at them when I added them to the history and information subcategory? They provide different information and in some parts more information than the current history and information links, atleast more than the 10 sentences in the foursquare website. The site also has rum news and other rum related articles which would be classified as 'Rum Information.'
  • There is very little else that is not related to rum.
  • Also how many rum reviews would you suggest the site should have before it is "worthy" in your opinion of being on the reviews subcategory of external links?

I look forward to your reply. Count Silvio (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you used a sockpuppet to add the link again without the discussion continuing or a consensus being reached means that your edits aren't in good faith. Others contributors have also removed your link, if you persist I assure you that your site will be added to wikimedia's list of blacklisted websites. Its not the end of the world if your site doesn't score a link from Wikipeda, that's what Google is for. 70.149.163.213 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a sockpuppet but a user of the site that has taken it into their own hands and I have asked the user not to do so in the future. Count Silvio (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to everyone if I add Refined Vices to the external links section now? The website has expanded to 11 in-depth rum reviews. The site also has lots of exclusive rum related content available such as informative articles about distilleries, rum presentations, news articles and a section about history & production of rum. I believe this is truly valuable information to rum drinkers wanting to find out more. The question remains, should I add it under "HIstory & Information" or "Reviews"? What do you think?
Count Silvio (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the link because no-one responded for a week. If you have a problem lets talk about it here. Count Silvio (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolution?

The article cited a the reference for the statement that rum was an economic justification for the revolutionary war -- an unusual claim indeed -- does not back up this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.97.157.47 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica about rum

Here is the article about rum from the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Rum_%28Alcohol%29

It really seems that rum has changed in the last 100 years. First of all, the minimum and average alcohol contents of the rums in the list there are quite high. Today, such rums are called overproof rum, but it looks like they where standard proof in 1911. Another difference is the use of the term spiced rum or "German rum", as it is also called there. I really think this type of spiced rum is different from modern spiced rum since it was used for blending. BTW, the so called German rum still exists! However, I'm not sure what the modern name is since it possibly is different, too. What I know is that this type of rum is used in Germany to produce "Rum-Verschnitt", which is already mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Rum-Verschnitt is nothing else but rum, which is blended with rectified spirit. What do you think about all this ? And shouldn't we add it to this article, somehow? 86.56.34.161 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)