Talk:Mezcal

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SummerStudent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Worms and other additives

hey, i was fortunate enough to attend a lecture from the owner of the don amado distillery down in mexico, a maker of a fine Mezcal. while there, the owner stated that the worm added into the mezcal was simply the more popular, well known additives of mezcal. he said that each little regional distillery used to ad different little ingredients, almost like signatures, that were distinct for the area and local peoples. he showed us a old mezcal with some kind of a nut (almonds i believe) and one with a beetle, another with some kind of berry. he went on to say, just like the article suggests, that the modern version of con gusano was just a commercial gimmick of this traditional additive. so, i don't know if this is true, does anyone know more about this? --Joe_Volcano69.110.32.204 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While this is not an answer, it is a further inquiry about the worm. I just got my bartending and mixology certification from BartenderOne and the instructor mentioned that the reason for adding the worm initially in mezcal was to determine if it was up to par in drinking standards. He said that if the worm was fine and still intact at the bottom of the bottle after x amount of time, the mezcal was drinkable, but if it disintegrated then the mezcal was not drinkable. Has anyone else come across something similar to this? Mattafuga 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I had learned that the worm was a legal measure introduced in the nineteenth century designed to assure the purity of mezcal. The story goes that fermentable materials cheaper than agave hearts have always been added to the mash and, to demonstrate that a mezcal contained a high proportion of agave, chiniquiles and meocuiles (which live only in maguey plants, not in sugarcane or maize) were included with each bottle. This story is as romantic and as semi-plausible as the others given here. The business about the worms adding a special flavor to the mezcal, however, does not survive even the most cursory of organoleptic investigation. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007

It seems more likely to me that the additive would be a guarantee for alcohol content rather than quality. If the bottle is diluted (in a bar for example) the content would lose its preserving effect and the organic additive at the bottom would start to decay. Using a worm that only lives on agave would of course have the side effect of indicating origin as well as being a memorable gimmick. moliate (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The section about the worm seems to be mostly just a copy of a paragraph from the tequila article about its improper use in tequila, rather than its actual use in mezcal. 149.160.81.35 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proof

I wonder if (in the spirit of standard units and other wikipedia guidelines) the old proof numbers referred should be changed to percentages.

No, they should not. Proof is a measure of alcohol concentration used in the source material from which Wikipedia is derived. So is percentage. If you read the style guidelines for unites you will see that source units should always be preserved (with conversions where appropriate). So if you really want to, you could always go through and list conversions everywhere, but the easier thing to do is probably just to link the word "proof" to Alcoholic proof (which unfortunately implies that it's U.S. term, but since it's widely used in the U.K., I doubt that). -Harmil 17:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As I read the manual of style, articles dealing with mezcal and tequila ought to use the units of measurement of Mexico. Here in Mexico, we measure our alcoholic beverages with the Guy-Lussac scale and express those measurements as volumetric percent (standard temperature and pressure being implied). Products labeled for sale in the U.S. will also show proof strength. But the original poster of this question has a good point, that our liquors ought to be described in terms of, say, 40 G.L. or "40% Alc. Vol." rather than 80 proof. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007

Just a quick point, and no disagreement, but "proof" strengths aren't used in the UK except conversationally; the official measurements, and what people actually use when comparing drinks, are percentages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.108.10 (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whose Law Is It Anyway?

"Contrary to public belief, tequila is, by law, not allowed to contain the worm."
Whose law is this? Mexico's? Los Estados Unidos? Some other country's?

The mexican government controls the production of Tequila, but there is a complex relationship with private certification organizations. I believe that international enforcement is done through trademark law. -Harmil 02:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The law is promulgated by Mexico's Secretaria de Economia through the Normas Oficiales Mexicanas. Tequila is specified by NOM-006. <http://www.economia-noms.gob.mx/> The standards specific to tequila are enforced through its trade organization, the Consejo Regulador de Tequila, A.C. <http://www.crt.org.mx/> The CRT also controls the labeling of tequilas sold on the international market. The standards for mezcal in general are NOM-070. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007

Worm

it states at the bottom of the page that it's illegal to sell mezcal with the worm in it, but i've seen plenty of bottles of monte alban in various states that clearly have a worm in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smowk (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is why: While Tequila is a mezcal made only from the blue agave plant in the region around Tequila, Jalisco, spirits labeled "Mezcal" are made from other agave plants and are not part of the Tequila family

The spirits labeled "Mezcal" will be the ones that might contain the worm. Monte Albán is a brand name of this type of spirit. Tequila is a kind of mezcal, and that particular kind is the one that cannot have the worm by law.~ Enrique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.156.215 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Worm Time

Are you sure that it was in 1940 when Jacobo Lozano Páez introduced the worm? I didn't find any source for that date. Most source tell that Jacobo Lozano Páez moved from Mexico to Parras. And in 1950, now owner of Atlántida, he discovered that the worm gives a different taste. Can you verify that? Yu_Kei (wikipedia Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.129.130 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Destilado de maguey

Of recent years I have seen that "mezcal" has been looked down upon as being a low quality firewater type of drink as opposed to tequila which is upscale and trendy. Many mezcal producers, prohibited from using the term "tequila", now use the term "destilado de maguey" (distillation of maguey) instead of "mezcal" on their labels so as to hide their product's lowly origins. Maybe mention should be made of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin1944 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

destliado de maguey

I meant "destilado de agave" not "destilado de maguey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin1944 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

destilado and other terms of art

Historically, "mezcal" and "tequila" were similar to "brandy" and "Cognac" in that the first describes the genus and the second describes a species. (They are both masculine, by the way, because they are ellyptical for "el aguardiente de mezcal" and "el aguardiente del mezcal de Tequila".) Nowadays, however, both terms have a legal meaning as well. You can make a "tequila" with only 51% Agave tequilensis Weber in the mash so long as you do so within a geographically defined region and follow the procedures required by law. If you're within the Tequila region but want to make your distillate out of Agave angustifolia, then you'll have to call it a mezcal. Anytime you vary from the specifications of "tequila" or "mezcal" you have to call your product something different. "Destilado de agave" is the most common descriptor for these variants ... I think I've even seen "destilado de maguey" but I can't be certain ... there are also "elixir de agave", "licor de agave", and "mezcal de Tequila". I've even seen bottles of "aguardiente de cana" for what I thought would be rum. Things have become very confusing ever since the Mexican version of Republicans took office. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007

Can the worm be eaten?

Or is that dangerous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.199.158 (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 8, 2006

It's probably safe to eat the worm. They wouldn't put anything toxic in the bottle. --Jcmaco 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

- Except for the alcohol... ha ha... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.111.236 (talk • contribs) 22:19, June 14, 2006

I always eat the worm in my mezcal (which is one of my favorite alcohols) and thus far have felt no Ill effects from it. I have also seen mezcals with scorpions, though I wouldn't eat that! -John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.21.216 (talk • contribs) 11:38, April 12, 2007

Do you swallow it whole or chew it? Maikel (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Does anyone know of the traditional religious aspects of mezcal consumption? Schabot 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pulque is depicted in Native American stone carvings from as early as 200 AD. The origin of pulque is unknown, but because it has a major position in religion, many folk tales explain its origins. According to one pre-Columbian legendary account, during the reign of Tecpancaltzin, a Toltec noble named Papantzin discovered the secret of extracting aguamiel from the maguey plant.[citation needed] Prior to the Spanish conquest, the Aztecs consumed it at religious ceremonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.205.69 (talk • contribs) 00:14, February 24, 2007

Video

I read the article, but was disappointed that one of the videos was completely in Spanish. It would be cool if subtitles or a voiceover were there for: http://www.veoh.com/channels/mezcalembajador This was in the section that said: "A number of objects are frequently added into mezcal bottles along with the mezcal itself. These can include worms, scorpions, and decorative elements such as glass sculptures with gold leaf (see Mezcal Embajador bottles)."

Peter10003 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

kiwkhdhdvfo[ihwef]ihwe'[fhw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.99.222 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mezcal vs. Tequila

Is there a definitive difference between mezcal and tequila? Or is mezcal simply a type of tequila — with the worm in it? --MicahBrwn (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You might try reading the article on Mezcal. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced: before breakfast?

"Mezcal is popular in the north of Mexico to drink in the morning before breakfast." - seems a tad dubious. Arided (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Drinking Mezcal incorrect quote?

In this section of the article it states There are a couple of rituals associated with it. One is saying "Arriba, abajo, al centro y pa ´dentro", (up, down, center and in) before the first shot and links as a reference this article - http://www.go-oaxaca.com/mezcal.html - however in the article you'll find what it actually says is Arriba, abajo, a la derecha, izquierda y pa´dentro, (up, down, to the left, right and in), in a shot is the way to receive the first taste of the White - so would anyone else agree it should be changed to match the reference?Dobyblue (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information on number of times distilled

In the section on the production of mezcal, it is incorrectly stated that mezcal is distilled only once, not twice like tequila. I know that the author cites two sources, but this is factually not true. Mezcal is distilled twice, the first distillation is referred to as punta. Punta comes out at 75 degrees alcohol (150% ABV), thus it would be necessary to distill again to bring the alcohol percentage down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.38.170 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It couldn't possibly be 150% ABV. I assume you mean 75% ABV/150 proof. I'm not sure what you mean about distilling again to bring alcohol content down. Distillation brings alcohol content up. Many distilled beverages are first distilled to around 75% and then diluted to 40%. Dilution is not distillation, however. I'm reverting your edits, but will add a disputed tag to single distillation. Mezcals may be distilled twice, but what you've written seems to confusion distillation with dilution. Please find a source for mezcal describing mezcal as being distilled twice. Thank you for contributingPlantdrew (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster, of course it can't be 150% ABV. And of course the second distillation raises the ABV, not lowers it. I changed the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxest (talk • contribs) 09:55, 30 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Can Blue Agave be used to make Mezcal

Present text in Wikipedia "As the regulations allow any agaves, provided that they are not used as the primary material in other governmental Denominations of Origin. Notably, this regulation means that mezcal cannot be made from blue agave"

If I were to interpret the regulations, in NOM-070-SCFI-1994, I would say that blue agave cannot be used for mescal if such is being used to produce another beverage (read tequila) whose name is geographically protected WITHIN THE SAME STATE. So producing mezcal from blue agave in Oaxaca is not a violation, but would be in Tamaulipas, Guanajuato and Michoacan (as these are three of the five states that can legally produce tequila (whose name is protected denomination of origin) which has to mandatorily made with minimum 51% blue agave and no other species)

Perfection161 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Sanjit KeskarPerfection161 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: there are two other mezcal certifying organizations besides COMERCAM: PAMFA and CIDAM. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead

@Obsidian Soul: I did not remove any sourced material from the article. It was all still there after my edit. Also you are adding your sources in the wrong place. You can put sources in the lead if you want, but they need to go in the History section first. See WP:LEADCITE. I will fix this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Apologies. Your edit was in the way, I had to revert the article back to the January version prior to CMD007's edits. Please feel free to reinstate your tweaks to the lead. I have no issues with you shortening it whatsoever. Although again, as per the (academic) references, the source of the distillation technology is from the Philippines, not Spain.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: P.S. CMD007's unsourced changes is also the reason why the History section didn't make sense. He deleted a large part of it and inserted "brandy" and "vineyards" in there, replacing "vino de coco" and "coconut plantations" respectively (per sources). Neither brandy nor vineyards were ever banned. Vino de coco and similar locally-produced liquors (mezcal, sotol, etc.) were banned precisely because they competed with the sales of imported Spanish liquor like brandy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok, sorry for flying off the handle and blaming you for something someone else did. Thank you for being gracious and thank you for fixing this. I'll give it a few days then see if I can do something with the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Brandy? It’s obvious that is European, I didn’t write anything about it being banned or burned. Why would it be burned? They burned palms. Also, please stop deleting the sources of the origins of distillation practices in Mexico. There is a plethora of sources that show it was from our Spanish ancestors. There is nothing about the Philippines in any mainstream literature and it would be ridiculous to think that the Filipino slaves would bring whole distilling machines with them to Mexico. Perhaps some stills made it with Novohispanic merchants, but the over exaggerated history of it being practically entirely of Filipino origin is utterly ridiculous. No historian in Mexico or Spain would agree to that. Why would the Spanish need a technology they already possessed and used with skill? Vino de coco already has its own page called Lamboang or something like that. That is Filipino —not mezcal and certainly not the origins of it. Please stop trying to rewrite history. One article by a writer that just wants to plug his country and make fantastical conclusions isn’t sufficient to go against oodles of other sources that say differently. CMD007 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You might want to start a section on the talk page and discuss this before making your changes. What you are doing now is going to lead to an edit war. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he is deleting at least 6 sources that say the opposite of his one source means he is engaging in edit-warring already. Why aren’t those sources protected? They were there first and all say the same thing, which is not aligned with his article’s “hypothesis”. CMD007 (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Source needed for "fermented agave to be distilled into mezcal is still called pulque"

@CMD007: The source you cited for "fermented agave to be distilled into mezcal is still called pulque" does not say that. All it says is that the agave sap can be converted to a non-distilled alcoholic beverage called pulque. This is the standard definition of pulque. Mezcal is not distilled from fermented agave sap. It is distilled from fermented piña. Your quote does not mention mezcal. If you want to say that fermented piña is also called pulque, that would be a new non-standard definition of the word "pulque" and we would need a source citation to support that. Your source does not say that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That is literally the same thing. The agave that is fermented turns into pulque, hence they call it pulque. In other words, the word pulque is still used for the same exact thing it’s always been used for. 1 + 1 = 2. CMD007 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Mezcal distillation started with Filipino introduction of distillation technology

1. My sources ([1], [2]) are peer-reviewed scientific papers that specifically study, in painstaking detail, the origin of the distillation technology used for mezcal and similar drinks in Mexico and Central America. Including the history of mezcal production when it was banned (with a chronological study of distillery sites), along with all other indigenously produced distilled spirits. Your sources are all highly generalized WP:TERTIARY sources that mention mezcal in like a paragraph or even a single sentence. None of them are scientific papers. They're coffeetable books on bartending, a guide on types of alcoholic drinks, and a highly general book on the history of alcohol. None of them I can even verify, because you don't even provide page numbers. In terms of which sources are more reliable and which should be given due weight, yours don't even come close to mine.

2. You provided just one scientific paper, by Puche et al. (2023), which raises the possibility of pre-Hispanic distillation. But it is out of context and does not verify your claim that the distillation technology is Spanish. Moreover, the archaeological remains Puche et al. has discussed in all of their papers are conical KILNS interpreted to be for cooking maguey. It has not been incontrovertibly proven to be for mezcal production. To date, there have been no remains of pre-colonial STILLS discovered, nor of any mention of pre-colonial mezcals. They are first mentioned only shortly after the arrival of vino de coco from the Philippines in the early 1600s. You're just randomly referencing anything which seems related.

3. As mentioned by the paper, the distillation technology used for Mezcal uses the Asian-type still, which consists of two pans in a simple cylinder with a central drain. It is unique to Asian cultures (originally Mongol or Chinese, but spread to Southeast Asia) and easily recognizable. It is also EXTREMELY different from the Spanish stills which use the Arabic-type alembic configuration. This is also discussed in my sources. But not in yours.

4. You basically made up stories about how the Spanish banned brandy and burned vineyards to fit in with the story of why mezcal was banned. Now you replaced it with a sentence claiming it was Charles III who banned it in 1785, when the prohibition of vino de coco and mezcal started in the late 1600s. Nor do you give a reason why it was banned. Because you don't actually have a reason that makes sense. The history of the banning of vino de coco and mezcal are well-documented in Spanish colonial records, and they were banned because they competed with imported Spanish alcohol in sales. These two alcoholic beverages are closely tied together historically, again as discussed in my sources. These are FACTS. The following is an actual quote from a letter sent by Sebastian de Piñeda to Philip III of Spain:

"There are in Nueva España so many of those Indians who come from the Filipinas Islands who have engaged in making palm wine along the other seacoast, that of the South Sea, and which they make with stills, as in Filipinas, that it ill in time become a part reason for the natives of Nueva España, who now use the wine that comes from Castilla, to drink none except what the Filipinos make. For since the natives of Nueva España are a race inclined to drink and intoxication, and the wine made by the Filipinos is distilled and as strong as brandy, they crave it rather than the wine from España. . . . So great is the traffic in this [palm wine] at present on the coast at Navidad, among the Apusabalcos, and throughout Colima, that they load beasts of burden with this wine in the same way as in España. By postponing the speedy remedy that this demands, the same thing might also happen to the vineyards of Piru. It can be averted, provided all the Indian natives of the said Filipinas Islands are shipped and returned to them, that the palm groves and vessels with which that wine is made be burnt, the palm-trees felled, and severe penalties imposed on whomever remains or returns to make that wine."

— Sebastian de Piñeda (1619), Bruman, Henry J. (July 1944). "The Asiatic Origin of the Huichol Still". Geographical Review. 34 (3): 418–427. doi:10.2307/209973. JSTOR 209973.

5. I don't care if you're a raging racist who seemingly think Filipinos were only slaves. Your ignorance is your own, it is not a valid reason to dismiss WP:RS. It also breaks WP:NPOV even before you started editing. Facts don't give a shit about your racism.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As a semi-retired editor of 10+ years, there's nothing I despise more than when I click someone's contributions and it turns out they have a pattern of editing to similar (but unconnected) topics which I then also have to revert for the same reasons of being unsourced, arbitrary changes of tone and meaning, or unexplained removals of sourced content, all for what is beginning to look like a pretty obvious hatred for the Philippines. Does it really bother you that we were also a Spanish colony? Is it because we're not white like you? We didn't choose to be colonized. Whether you like it or not, we were part of the Spanish Empire. And no amount of erasing our history here or dismissing us as "just slaves" will change that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

While I'm pleased that at least one of you seems willing to discuss, it would be nice if you could both hold off on the mass reverts until the discussion has concluded. You're making it difficult to work on the article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

REPLY TO OBSIDIAN SOUL, You talk about a nuetral point of view and then yell at the top of your lungs that Filipinos created Mezcal. That’s utter and complete nonsense. You have a VERY slim claim to all of this nonsense, as I’ll show you with REAL sources… Sources that are from the same sites your ONE source is from. (Not to mention you also yell that I’m a “racist”. Your conduct and swearing in the edits may get you banned, be warned). Your second source doesn’t back up any claim except that the Indigenous perhaps used a Mongolian still to make their already invented drinks. Also, who really cares if you think the Philippines was “part of the Spanish empire”, it was a far away TERRITORY under the rule of the Viceroyalty in Mexico City. Just as places in Africa were territories yet they do not try to create a narrative like you. And they even speak Spanish!!

Your source by Daniel Zizumbo literally states that “small, easy-to-use Philippine-type stills that could be hidden from authorities and allowed use of a broad range of agave species.” This makes it easy to see that those stills were borrowed from Asians because the Spanish ones were too large to hide. It doesn’t prove they were the only available distilling technology IN MEXICO. Besides that fact, it is also a fact that without the Spanish, filipino slaves wouldn’t even be in Mexico to create their drink. Not to mention the very well known fact that brandy making goes back to the Middle Ages in Spain. The Spanish had obvious distillation technology. Your first source also only says “The Philippine people in Colima established the practice…to produce coconut spirits”… that source does not say ALL distillation in Mexico was Filipino OR Asian in origin. Clearly you are over extending his words and building a whole narrative on practically nothing.

[3] This source which you use calls the stills MONGOLIAN. There is no mention of anything from the Philippines. While looking into Mongolian stills, I found yet another source (which is also ever so importantly peer reviewed) which states that distillation technologies “developed in east Asia and the Middle East, later to be adopted in Europe and brought to the New World.”[4]

“…Europe and brought to the New World” Where does it say Filipinos brought distillation to the New World?? This source also leans into the evidence that the native populations of the Pre-Hispanic Americas did have their own methods of distillation. Yet another source from the University of California Press [5] states that Spanish setters introduced the process of distillation to Mexico. This one [6] does as well, recounting the stills from Spain.

About the Mongolian stills, a source [7] says that “…By contrast, Chinese-type stills‭ mentioned by Bruman as “Filipino ‬stills” have many variants among Mezcal producers in Mexico” Again proof they are not even specifically Filipino!! He just called them that in the 1940’s!!! (And you are trying to pick apart my sources?? At least most are from THIS century.) The stills are East Asian, from anywhere from Korea to China, etc.‬

This source [8] states that only “Circumstantial evidence suggests that this occurred in pot stills imported into Colima from the Philippines…” This is only talking about stills utilized. It does not even claim Filipinos brought distillation let alone “brought” the stills themselves. Obviously there was trade between Asia and Europe with Mexico as the middle man. The Spanish/Novohispanic ships brought the stills. There is no way to tie this back to what you’re trying to claim.

I can keep going - This source from the same journal [9] and UNAM calls it a possible Amerindian technique. Philippine origin is listed as a THIRD THEORY. What are the chances a third theory is correct? Especially when there is ample evidence that the first two theories are correct. This source [10] from the scientific journal states “We tested the hypothesis of Needham et al. (1980) that Capacha gourd and trifid vessels described by Kelly (1974) for the Early Formative (1500-1000 BCE) in Colima state, western Mexico, could have been used to produce distilled beverages. That would also be a Native origin, spurred to new levels by the settlement of the Spanish.

YOU HAVE DELETED the source Serra Puche, M. C., Lazcano Arce, J. C. (2023). El mezcal, una bebida prehispánica. Estudios etnoarqueológicos. Mexico: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas. Which states it is a mixture of Native and Spanish traditions. NO FILIPINOS MENTIONED. This is from the The National Autonomous University of Mexico, a public research university in Mexico. The author is an ethnoarcheologist!!!! But still not good enough for you. Well newsflash, YOU ARE WRONG.

About the other sources I’ve provided, you call a book (Vinos de América y de Europa. (n.d.). (n.p.): Editions Le Manuscrit) by someone who studied at the Central University of Barcelona and the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) and published by Éditions Le Manuscrit which in its own words “disseminates, in partnership with universities, institutions and think-tanks, the work of international research”, not a good source?? Another source’s author worked with the Wine and Spirit Education Trust to create 'The Level 2 Award in Spirits’, the only globally recognized vocational qualification relating to spirits and liqueurs. Why is that not a good enough source for you? YOU are cherry picking.

Another is a British article from the Royal Society of Chemistry that states the Spanish brought the distillation techniques. HOW is that not enough for you??? You have ONE source and delete more than 5 other sources which are CORROBORATED. That is NONSENSE.

Another thing, Filipinos did NOT immigrate to Nueva Galicia (and the list of FIVE states). They were concentrated in coastal areas like Guerrero and Colima where they were used as slaves for plantations or even house slaves in Acapulco. [11] That entire sentence about “filipino immigrants in the kingdom of Nueva Galicia” is not able to be backed up by a single source. Additionally, this source [12] states the Asians who may have brought stills were anywhere from Japanese to Korean to Chinese. This is a source from the same journal as your ONE slim source. CMD007 (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's funny. Because pretty much everything you wrote, I already address in my first comment. Except your lack of reading comprehension with regards to the sources provided. And that I can not help with. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You have both been guilty of removing sourced material. That's not how we achieve neutrality. We include all the reliable sources, and where they disagree, we include both viewpoints. See WP:NPOVHOW. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE. Read his sources. Read mine. Tell me which is more reliable. Or even, which of them actually verifies the thing being claimed. You have already been confused twice by his misuse of sources and arbitrary changes. When you asked clarification for the brandy ban (because brandy was never banned), and your argument above with the term "pulque" (because pulque is a completely different subject from mezcal). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is passed pathetic. You have ONE source against 10 SOURCES. Yes, please do look at mine, and you will see that they are perfectly reliable sources which include scientific journals as well as historical research from UNAM and University of California Press, etc. They all say the same thing and show that your “source” is out of context. CMD007 (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You've got a valid point. We have five paragraphs that are sourced only to Zizumbo. But we're not going to make any progress until you both stop edit warring and start being civil. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Curtis

I suggest that the entire paragraph about Curtis be removed. It has nothing to do with mezcal. When Curtis says "mescal" he's talking about the agave plant, not about distilled liquor (this is explained in the footnote on page 22). I removed this once but got reverted with no explanation, possibly as collateral damage from the ongoing edit war. Maybe when the edits settle down someone can do this.

I also suggest that the cantaro and gusano images have the "upright" param added to them. The gusano image in particular is crowding into the following section on my fairly narrow screen. Again I already did this once and got reverted with no explanation. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. CMD007 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: You're the one who restored the Curtis paragraph. Is there some reason you think it should be included? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make these changes, since no one has objected here. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Vino de coco

Why does this article on Mezcal have so much history about Vino de coco? That subject already has an entire article here. The appropriate “links” to Mezcal can be included, but not an entire history of it. It isn’t Mezcal. I propose deleting all information except that which is pertinent information. CMD007 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead again

@CMD007: Regarding these edits: [13] [14]: Don't do this. Go read WP:LEAD. The lead summarizes the article. The way it was before was fine. In the History section we had a detailed discussion, and in the lead we had a brief summary. No one wants to read all that in the lead. The paragraph in the History section was not redundant, it was essential. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

considered a drink of artisan origin

This seems like weird marketing stuff. Where does this notion come from? Jasdasra (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction:

It’s NEVER spelled mescal, the correct form is mezcal. Please delete that because it’s a mistake 2806:2A0:F14:83BB:18D6:624A:80A6:A446 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally I would consider the New York Times to be a reliable source. Do you have a source that says it's never spelled mescal? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

CMD007

@2601:647:8200:BD40:3D87:E8C4:1FF4:7345: Are you CMD007, editing anonymously? I see you've re-applied some of his edits, using the same sources. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Cocktail names are not proper nouns

@Steven Walling: Cocktails names are not proper nouns, at least not on Wikipedia. There are pointers to the relevant discussions at Talk:List of cocktails#Requested move 23 November 2022. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard and four people commenting doesn't represent a solid consensus to move an entire class of articles to sentence case. Everything from Merriam-Webster to cocktail history books capitalize the names of known cocktails. Not to mention every bar menu on the planet. Steven Walling • talk 04:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Confused geography

Regarding this: "Alexander von Humboldt mentions it in his Political Treatise on the Kingdom of New Spain (1803), noting that a very strong version of mezcal was being manufactured clandestinely in the districts of Valladolid (Morelia), State of Mexico, Durango and Nuevo León." Obviously Humboldt could not possibly have mentioned anything regarding the State of Mexico. The others are problematic too, for example there was no district of Durango, the city was part of Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain. Maybe it should say "present day" but I have no access to the source to check. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)