Talk:Whisky

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.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Spotlight
This article is currently under the Spotlight. There may be several people working on the article, so beware of edit conflicts. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

Here are some tasks you can do:


    This box: view • talk • edit

    Contents

    [edit] 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)

    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

    [edit] 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)

    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)

    [edit] 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.

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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

    [edit] 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

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] Related Links Gone

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

    [edit] 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).

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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.

    [edit] '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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] "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

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)


    [edit] 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

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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).

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] "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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)