From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


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. 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

im afraid sir, it is you who is incorrect Myself0101 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Title 27, Part 5, Subpart C, section 5ff., the proper designation of a spirit distilled from a mash of grain to less than 190proof and aged in oak containers, is "whisky" (plural whiskies). "Whiskey" is only allowed as a historical curiosity. Maker's Mark and George Dickel are two that use the official spelling on their bottles. Thus, 'whisky' ought to be the title for the article (sorry, Ireland!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

hehe - "historical curiosty" how are you! Although I have a history I am by no means a "historical curioristy" when I use the spelling "whiskey". Whiskey is the "proper" spelling to every normal persion and "whisky" is the ultimate "historical curiosity". It is only tightness to drop the 'e'. Huh, the Scots. I can also attest, here ar meisce as I am, that Jamesons, Bushmills and Paddy - may all their children be bishops - also have the proper and correct spelling: W-H-I-S-K-E-Y. The fact the the English and the Scots can't spell should come as no surprise to us ;-) (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (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

Whisky vs. whiskey[edit]

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. 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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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)

A source I've run across cites many examples of both spellings in many countries. Legal wording aside, it is his opinion that either spelling is correct in any country since one can find an example of either spelling used by a distiller in that country. Who you gonna trust with this after all, lawyers and English majors or the people that actually make the product?

This is the text of the article:

Whiskey or whisky

Explanations of why whisky is spelled as it is (whisky versus whiskey) make up one of the most common myths about whisky. Why? Because they are so difficult to refute without a fair bit of research. So, mischievous people, wishing to appear knowledgeable, have just made up explanations and these have, over time, become the perceived wisdom on the subject. While they all make sense, none that I have read have any basis in fact.

I’ll go over the main explanations I have heard:

The Irish did not, as some would have us believe, add an ‘e’ to whisky to differentiate their whisky from the Scots’ because they (the Irish) thought their whisky was superior to Scotch. A few may have, but this never happened across the board, and when there were hundreds of distilleries in Ireland both spellings were used commonly. Later, when whisky distilling went through difficult times and almost every Irish distillery went bankrupt, the three remaining distilleries merged to form a single entity, adopting a single spelling. There is no evidence that the spelling with the ‘e’ was chosen for any particular reason. However, there are still plenty of full bottles of Irish whisky around with labels that spell whisky without the 'e'.

The idea that countries with an ‘e’ in their name spell whiskey with an 'e' does not hold up for French whisky made in France, Welsh whisky made in Wales, British whisky made in England and a whole raft of others, but the nmemonic works well for those just beginning their whisky journey. Legally, in Scotland Scotch whiskey is spelled with an 'e' - whiskey, but you never see this on the labels. Editorial decisions of the New York Times notwithstanding, and despite the certain indignant outcry from those who have accepted, uncritically, the above-noted perceived wisdom, American writers who write about Scotch whiskey are just as correct as those who drop the ‘e’.

As you undoubtedly are already aware there are at least five popular brands of whisky made and sold in the USA which use the whisky rather than the whiskey spelling on their labels. As well, there is absolutely no truth in the commonly-held belief that Americans use the ‘e’ spelling because of a predominantly Irish heritage. First, that heritage is greatly exaggerated, second, the famed Scotch-Irish (Scots-Irish) were in fact Scots who spent a couple of generations in Ireland then came to America. But they were Scots, not Irishmen. Third, the almost-exclusive use of the ‘e’ spelling in Ireland did not happen until the 1970's, way too late to influence American spellings.

Similarly, the supposition that Canada uses the whisky spelling because of a Scottish heritage is refuted by the fact that both spellings have been commonly used by Canadian whisky makers, bottlers and distillers. In Canada, we now seem to have settled on the no-e spelling but I can assure you this was not always the case. At least into the 1960's and probably much more recently than that we have used both spellings on our labels, and we still use both spellings in the press.

Here is an article I published a couple of years ago on the maltmaniacs web-site.

I have since done considerably more research on the matter and am more certain than ever of my position that either spelling is correct in any country (or more precisely that neither spelling is incorrect in any country), have more examples of whiskies, labels, distilleries, whisky-makers, and writers who are seemingly unaware of there being any distinction, and more photos of bottles with labels sporting a spelling that perceived wisdom and the New York Times style book would deem incorrect.

Davin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tudza (talkcontribs) 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite what people seem to think about the proper spelling in the United States, I am compelled to point out that the law of the United States uses the spelling "whisky" exclusively. There is no provision in the law for any other spelling to be allowed. That is also the dominant spelling in the law of Canada (although the Canadian law does say "Whisky or Whiskey" in one place). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: The government has since changed where that part of the law is found on the web. It is now here (part 5 of title 27 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations). I did find "whiskey" in it in one place – but that place has nothing to do with a discussion of the spelling, and appears to be simply a typo. I would also like to say that although the regulations don't contain any explicit provision for allowing other spellings, they also don't contain any explicit prohibition of other spellings (and since the other spelling is actually more common in the U.S., it's obviously allowed). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


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

The picture implies a very large measure of (undiluted) whisky - not pro

Either reduce the size of the measure to a single measure of alcohol or add a caption - whisky with mixer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is there purely to demonstrate the colour and look of whisky, and to show the uninitiated reader exactly what whisky is - it is doubtful the image is of "whisky with a mixer", and thus the caption you propose is unsuitable. I don't think it is necessary to change the image to a smaller measure, or at all, as the article (or wikipedia in general, in that case) hardly 'encourages' binge drinking, and there is no reason to be pro- or anti-anything here - wikipedia is, after all, neutral. I doubt that an image of a dram that size would in any way affect the decisions of the average drinker. ABVS1936 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks wrong, it's far to large to be a glass of whiskey. If the colour needed to be shown, it should be done in a taller, thinner glass, although that wouldn't be a whiskey glass. Explosive Cornflake (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This whisky is on the rocks. That is disgraceful. The picture should be replaced with one of whisky served properly. (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - whisky and ice is an abomination (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


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 (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".
FYI, the USA is actually the largest English speaking country in the world, both in terms of first language & additional language speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting section. I've never heard anyone use the word "scotch", except on films. When we say whisky, we mean stuff from Scotland, owt else needs qualifying.--SquidSix (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In Scotland and the North of England - Scotch is a type of dark beer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S. and Canada, "whisky" (by itself) definitely does not "almost always refer to 'Scotch whisky'", and I rather doubt it almost always refers to Scotch whisky in Ireland or India (or Japan) either, as those countries produce a lot of "whisky" themselves. In the U.S., the term "Scotch" (by itself) is certainly commonly used to refer to Scotch whisky, and "whisky" (by itself) seems much more likely to refer to Bourbon or Canadian or Irish or cheap blended whisky than to Scotch whisky (especially in the central U.S.). If someone in the U.S. wants to refer to Scotch whisky, I think they would usually say "Scotch" or "Scotch whisky". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to be very sceptical when you see an editor who doesn't know how to spell "countries" making claims about English vocabulary usage around the World. India is the country with the largest population in which English is an official language, sure, but it has very few native speakers so I wouldn't say it's the largest English speaking country in terms of population. As for what the term "whisk(e)y" refers to in the (actual) English-speaking world, it seems we probably need better sources. In Australia, though, any whisky can be called "whisk(e)y" and if you want to specifically refer to whisky from Scotland, you'd say/write "scotch" or "scotch whisky". Jimp 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to reorder list of regional/national whiskeys[edit]

I think that ordering the regional/national types of whiskey historically (i.e. where it was first thought to have been made to where it was most recently made) rather than alphabetically would better illustrate whiskey's story. Any thoughts?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the purpose of the History section, which, in an article of this importance, is woefully inadequate. Listing the types of whiskeys in alphabetical order is straightforward. Sláinte! Hammersbach (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hammersbach,
I know that the alphabetic order is straightforward, but as what we've got here is more or less a list of whiskys, if we were to implement the chronological ordering WP protocol it could result in a much better overall article, as it would reflect whisky's actual story (i.e. its geographical movement and development). The alphabetical ordering unfortunately has the effect of overriding and obscuring this.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of the list of whiskeys, as currently presented in this article, is to describe the various styles of the whiskeys. Reading the section on each of the different types show little, if any, discussion of their relative histories. Reordering them in a chronological fashion in their present state would do nothing to explain or clarify the history of whiskey’s geographical movement and development. Even if we were to rewrite each to include historical information, I do not believe that a rearranged list is the proper vehicle in which to tell the whole of whiskey’s actual story. I still feel that the correct place to discuss this is in the History section, and that it should be done in a narrative rather than list manner. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

History again[edit]

The History section really could use some work. Much of it is sourced from, which is in the business of selling whisky so doesn't really qualify as a reliable source. Some of what it says is just plain wrong, for example Phylloxera is not a beetle. The section talks almost exclusively about Scotch whisky, not surprising considering the source. Surely there have been books written about the history of whisky, and there must be some editor on Wikipedia able to re-write this section. Rees11 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Corsican whisky[edit]

The reference given for Corsican whisky doesn't say anything about whisky. I suspect there is something wrong with the web site, as it looks like the page is truncated. An alternate source would be good. Rees11 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


The current paragraph under Types begins as follows:

Malt is whisky made entirely from malted barley and distilled in an onion-shaped pot still. Grain is made from malted...

I suggest for symmetry with the first sentence about malt whisky that the sentence on grain whisky be modified by inserting the single word "whisky" as follows: Grain is whisky made from malted...

Alternatively, and I confess I don't know if this is contrary to how the terms are used in the business, you could move the word "whisky" to the second word of both sentences. Again the idea being to make the two sentences symmetrical.

Malt whisky is made... Grain whisky is made...

Mthorn10 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Different kinds of wooden barrels?[edit]

Does the use of oak have an effect on whisky's flavor? The main page of this article could be improved by comparing the kinds of wood used in the barrels used for different whiskies. (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling and sour mash[edit]

I wish to compliment you on the excellent entry, “Whisky” ( I’d like to add a few of my comments:

Under TYPES, line 14, you use “Canadian Whiskey” however, your article is very clear that Canadians use “Whisky”.

Also, the title of reference 55 is "Canadian Whiskey". The Spirit World.. Retrieved 2007-12-18, however, that is the author’s error.

I was surprised that you did not explain Sour Mash. I was always told that that is a special process used only in Kentucky in Bourbons distinguishing them from Tennessee Bourbons. In most cases, Old Crow® refers to it product as The Original Sour Mash Bourbon although Jim Beam, currently one of the best selling brands of bourbon in the world, also used Sour Mash.

Sincerely, Gerry Dooley — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is my understanding:
  • Whisky/whiskey is a word that has two acceptable spellings, depending primarily on the region in which an author resides. Sometimes people try to spell it the way the producer of a product spells it, and sometimes people just spell it the way they like to spell it. Some people try to make a big deal out of the spelling as part of their strategy for making money – i.e., as part of establishing a distinct brand identity. This seems clearly be true of some producers of Scotch Whisky and others such as Maker's Mark (a Kentucky Bourbon) and George Dickel (a Tennessee whiskey). People who try to insist that other people spell it according to their own rigid rules are likely to end up somewhat frustrated. If an American publication spells the word according to its local convention when referring to a product made in another country, that's not necessarily an error. I don't check where my car's tires are made before deciding whether to call them tires or tyres, and I don't check where my neighbors were born before deciding whether to refer to them as neighbors or neighbours.
  • My understanding is that practically all Bourbon and Tennessee whiskey is made using the sour mash process. Jack Daniel's, for example, is a sour mash whiskey – and it's the largest-selling brand of Tennessee whiskey. The Tennessee whiskey distinction seems like mostly a marketing strategy without any clear difference in how the whiskey is made. Most actual Tennessee whiskey meets the legal definition of Bourbon (and that is actually required by law to some extent – e.g., it is a clear requirement in the law of Canada).
  • As part of marketing strategy to sell their products, people tend to be willing to make dubious claims about historical facts. The claim that the sour mash process was originally and exclusively invented by the producer of Old Crow seems pretty dubious.
One author who has written several essays on these topics (backed up by some decent historical and legal research) is Charles Cowdery. It should be easy to search on the Internet for articles that he has written, and several Wikipedia articles reference things he has said. I suggest reading his articles. He seems to usually know what he's talking about and to generally not twist the facts to sell particular products.
BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian whiskies - Amrut Distilleries[edit]

Reads a little bit spammy. Notable? Polmandc (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Phrasal adjectives[edit]

This article would be improved by hyphenating them, I.e. "single-malt whisky" as opposed to "single malt whisky." Rule 56 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)-

Is there, perhaps, a distiller out there who actually uses "single-malt" on their label that you could cite? Hammersbach (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair question. That I can't point to one yet is a weakness in my argument. But I go to distillers for whisky, not grammatical advice. How they punctuate a term isn't dispositive. If it were, we'd all likely use grocer's apostrophes (e.g., banana's, folio's, logo's, quarto's, pasta's, ouzo's). And we'd incorrectly substitute "less" when "fewer" was called for (e.g., "Express Lane: 12 items or less" instead of "Express Lane: 12 items or fewer.") No, it seems to me that this is a grammatical issue, not a distillation issue.Rule 56 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)-
"Single malt" is not a phrasal adjective in that sense. "Single" means that it comes from a single distillery, "malt" means that it is produced entirely from malted barley. "Single-malt" would mean that it was produced from a single type of malt - LCMO, for instance. In the case of "single cask", a hyphen can be used, but is not actually required - there is no ambiguity, because "cask whisky" is not a term that is in use. Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Funnily enough, you said exactly the opposite about what the "single" in "single malt" means on my talk page: "That is precisely the point - that is NOT the primary reference."Rule 56 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)-
No, I did not. I said the same thing. "Single malt" does not mean the same as "single-malt". "Single" means "single-distillery". "Malt" means "pure malt". "Single-malt", if it were ever used, would mean "produced from a single type of malt". Did you look at the explanation on grain whisky as I suggested? Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Look, despite an abundance of references to the contrary, the "single" in "single malt" doesn't mean single distillery. Why? Because it's superfluous. When whisky comes from more than one distillery, or when it contains something other than a single malted grain, it's called "blended." So "single malt" means it comes from one type of malted grain. And when you use both words together to describe a whisky, they're properly—though obviously infrequently—hyphenated. How do I know? Professional writers, and the carefully edited periodicals they work for, hyphenate it. I've given you two examples earlier. There are more. Cheers. Rule 56 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you are completely wrong. Single malt means one distillery - as opposed to vatted malt, which comes from several distilleries. (Blended whisky contains malt and grain whiskies) Care to provide a source for your opinion? Preferably one which has some passing relationship to whisky... Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What good would another source do? I've given you several and they're all wrong. Another won't change anything. You've seen it done one way your entire life and are fine with it. Rule 56 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You've found two instances of a hyphen being used - that's hardly the same as a source for the assertion that "single" does not mean "single-distillery". It may be obvious to you, but don't you think you're edging out on to a WP:OR limb here? To the best of my knowledge the whisky industry has also seen it done one way its entire life and is fine with it - isn't that what an encyclopedia should be recording? Let's be clear - I have no quarrel with your insertion of hyphens in compound modifiers, and I have not reverted any of those (I don't think they're necessary, but that's a different argument). This is not about the grammar, it's about the semantics. "Single" and "vatted" are applied to the noun, not to the other adjective, and a hyphen would be entirely wrong. I refer you again to the example of "single grain whisky". Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to wade back into the fray (I get the sense that arguing with you is like wrestling a pig: you enjoy it and I get dirty), but what I've done is pointed to two professionally written, professionally edited publications that support my position. You've responded with the rhetorical equivalent of "but we've always done it this way" (see above where you say that "the whisky industry has also seen it done one way its entire life and is fine with it") and with the tortured argument that "single" actually means "single distillery." The first I can't argue with: it has always been done that way, as incorrect as it may be. The latter is easily debunked: The OED itself defines "single malt" as "whisky unblended with any other malt." You'll note that the definition doesn't say anything about coming from a single distillery. The "single" in "single malt" has absolutely nothing to do with the nonsense argument that the product comes from one distillery. Cheers. Rule 56 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────When you get done wrestling with that pig you may want to spend some quality time reviewing the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009. This very real and legal document defines both “single malt” and “single grain” whiskies as coming from a single distillery, and does so with a curious lack of hyphens. Perhaps it’s time for you to consider switching to a good Bourbon. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. But as a lawyer who spends a good deal of time reviewing legislation, I can tell you that laws are not models of good grammar: all those left-branching sentences, archaic diction, mind-numbing cross references, inflated jargon....not exactly page-turning material. As often as not, laws like that are drafted by industry insiders. And no laws are written by professional writers and editors. Now, off to try your suggestion. Cheers. Rule 56 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to point it out, but since it is part of the discussion above – the term vatted malt is now prohibited under the SWR. The current legal term for use on labels (for Scotch whisky within the UK) is blended malt. (See the vatted malt article, which is now just a redirect.) –BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why no section on health effects?[edit]

It should have one. ScienceApe (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is nothing (at least nothing well established as fact) that makes whisky much different from other distilled beverages in terms of its health effects – or from alcoholic beverages in general. This article should be about whisky only. It should not duplicate information that would apply much more generally. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and Australia[edit]

The entire section is missing citations. It mentions Tasmanian whiskeys in particular winning awards, then fails to mention the whiskeys or even provide a picture. Is whoever originally added Australia still around to remedy this? Chrissd21 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Snake whisky[edit]

How come no mention of the snake whisky? Its quite famous actually and has Hakarl-like yum. Samar Talk 17:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing[edit]

Everything written on this article needs to be verifiable from reputable third-party sources. Anything that is not is liable to be removed. --John (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And it is. When you remove an entire paragraph calling it uncited when there is a citation within the very text you remove, then someone isn't paying attention. Having read through the sources used for the Aussie and NZ sections, I find them to be quite reliable, as they are based on news sources and basic facts. Please do not tag or remove them again; doing such shall be considered tendentious. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's up to you to show this as verifiable if you want to retain it. --John (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I did; I added specific references to sources specializing in the matter. I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:V, and do not know what your issue is. oknazevad (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And yet the clue was in the tags you removed. Here, I will make it really easy for you. What makes a reliable source? What makes a reliable source? What are their fact-checking policies? Do many learned journals frequently reference their work? Here's a further scaffold to aid your understanding; what would stop me from registering a domain, say, filling it with positive statements about the great whiskies they make in Senegal, then adding it to Wikipedia with that as a source? This is why we use reliable sources only; show me coverage on the BBC, the Guardian, CNN, or even better a reputable book or magazine. These are what we call reliable sources on Wikipedia; the ones you are adding look self-published. They won't do. If you need a week or whatever to find better ones, that's fine. But the stuff that is supported by weak sourcing is coming down, make no mistake about it. --John (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
They are news agrigators; from there one easily can find the sites' own sources for the information they present. It's how I found the Scotsman article that I used in the Australia section. In short, they show their own sources and are well referenced in that regard. That's why I judged it a reliable source for the purposes of this article. And I certainly do not appreciate the threat below. If you do not feel that the source is reliable enough, and I do, then we should seek a third opinion. Outright removal would make it the article less complete and comprehensive, a poor idea for an overview article, and is a detriment to the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
If they are news aggregators that should be easy. Just pull out the original reliable sources that are being aggregated and pop them on the article. I certainly don't want to make the article less complete; but I do want to ensure that everything here meets verifiability requirements, and right now I am not convinced that everything does. --John (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have tagged the article accordingly. Anything that is still only supported by self-published sources one week from now will be removed. --John (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Took me longer than I thought but I cleaned out some of the worst self-promotion. Please, let's avoid letting it build up again. --John (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I see we've had another attempt to promote "Swedish whisky" and "South African whisky". Let's remember we need proper third-party sources here. --John (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Consistency of English[edit]

I'm sure we're all familiar with WP:MoS's position on consistency.

Although Wikipedia favors no national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.

This means it's sulphur not sulfur (yes, there're guidelines to use IUPAC names but these apply to chemistry articles. It also means no dots on US (consistent with the dotless UK).

There are exceptions to the consistency guideline but that a particular section has strong national ties is not one of them so the American whiskeys section doesn't get to drop the u from flavour, colour & odour.

But the big question is "Do the American whiskeys and Irish whiskeys sections get to add the e?". Well, says the article (refs removed)

There are basically two schools of thought on the issue. One is that the spelling difference is simply a matter of local language convention for the spelling of a word, indicating that the spelling will vary depending on the background or personal preferences of the writer (like the difference between color and colour; tire and tyre; or recognize and recognise), and the other is that the spelling should depend on the style or origin of the spirit that is being described.

I tend more toward the former. Whisky is whisky and whiskey is whisky and whiskey is whiskey and whisky is whiskey. It's the same stuff whether you spell it with an e or not. It has been noted above that the whiskey spelling isn't even universal in the US or Ireland. Do we have a justification for favouring the latter (that spelling should depend on style or origin) or was it just a product of whatever misguided line of thought it was which gave had us dropping the u in the American whiskeys section?

I'm proposing consistant e-less spelling, consistent with the article title, throughout the article. Who's for it? JIMp talk·cont 09:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I thought it was a misguided line of thought that had us adding the "u" to the article. Hmmm, anyway, I am off to pour myself a spot of Red Breast, one of my favorite whiskeys... Slàinte! Hammersbach (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
English spelling is nothing if it isn't misguided whichever side of whichever pond you be on; we squabble over color vs colour and flavor vs flavour ... when we'd all be better off with culler and flaver anyway. I've gone ahead and switched the whiskeys to whiskys. I stopped for a second when I came across "In modern trade usage, Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey are thus distinguished in spelling; whisky is the usual spelling in Britain and whiskey that in the U.S." (from OED in the refs); is this weight on the side of the spelling-should-depend-on-the-style-or-origin school of thought? Yeah, somewhat ... perhaps ... but this isn't trade usage it's an encyclopædia ... so, on the other hand, no. JIMp talk·cont 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think you should have stopped when not a single one of the editors who regularly edit this article said that they agree with your proposal... Slàinte! Hammersbach (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hammersbach. There is no need to standardise when there is a clear distinction made in the lead between the two spellings and that usage is followed through in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead when after a week and a half not one editor (regulars here or otherwise) said they disagree. Perhaps there is no need to standardise, there is no need not to either, perhaps there's no need for Wikipedia in the first place. Anyhow, if this is the way we're doing things here, so be it, but it didn't have to be this way, it's a choice. How, though, do you write "Canadian and Irish whisky"? JIMp talk·cont 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The extra "e" was added by Irish distillers (sometime in the 19th cent) as a "mark of quality" to distinguish their product from cheap Scottish-produced "Irish" whiskies. Not all Irish distillers followed the example, but most did. I'll dig out a reference tonight. But it wouldn't be right to "standardize" on one spelling or another. Context does come into it. --HighKing (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the many myths; the truth is there's no standardized spelling of the word, though particular varieties are associated with a particular spelling. See the existing references to Charles Cowdery's works; he's clearly a reliable reference on the matter, and not given to following yet another nonsense myth.oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not here to push the issue but I don't see it as a matter of right or wrong whether we standardise on one spelling or use both, it's just a matter of style. The article references a blog[1][2] by Chuck Cowdery who argues that whichever way it's spelt it's the same stuff and that the whisky/whiskey question is no different to the colour/color one, i.e. choose one spelling and stick to it. No, there is no standardised spelling of the word but there are dozens of words in English with variant spellings. I agree with him whisky is whisky whether it come from Scotland or Ireland, Canada or America. If the tyres on my car happened to come from America, I wouldn't spell them tires. So it still seems perfectly valid to me to choose one spelling for the article and stick to it; it's no different in my mind to sticking with flavour and colour even though we may be talking about bourbon. But I'm not trying to prove myself right, I'm just saying I'm not wrong. I'm arguing that standardising on one spelling is a valid style but I must concede that I haven't shown that choosing which to use depending on the origin isn't. If consensus is to keep both, so be it. JIMp talk·cont 01:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Origins of flavours[edit]

The Chemistry section lists four origins of the flavour of whiskey.

  1. Flavours from distillation
  2. Flavours from oak
  3. Flavours and colouring from additives
  4. Chill filtration

I wonder how far from complete this list is. No mention is made here of the smoky flavour obtained from the malting process which I'm pretty sure is important. JIMp talk·cont 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved "The distinctive smoky flavour that can often be found in Scotch is due to the use of [[peat]] smoke to treat the malt." to its own Flavours from treating the malt subsection tweaking it a bit to "The distinctive smoky flavour found in various types of whisky, especially Scotch<!--single Islay malts particularly -->, is due to the use of [[peat]] smoke to treat the malt.". Some non-Scotch whiskies may also be smoky (maybe not very and not many but they do exist). Note that I've hidden single Islay malts particularly; firstly, since I haven't got the references on hand (unless you count the few bottles of the stuff sitting next to me), and secondly, I'm not sure whether this detail is needed. Jimp 10:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it made?[edit]

We talk about the name of the stuff, its etymology and spelling. We talk of the history of the stuff. We talk of the different types and places it's made. We talk of its chemistry. But if you want to know how it's made, you'll just have to piece it together by following links and figuring it all out. Let's have a section on how it's made. JIMp talk·cont 10:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just realized that I never put my intended answer to this idea. The reason to not include such a section in this article is because production methods are too varied from one variety to another to appropriately describe in this general overview article. In other words, while it would be possible to describe the process as: malt barley; cook (with some other grains, sometimes); add yeast to ferment (and maybe backset); move liquid to still (or is it the liquid and the solids; and is that a batch pot still or a continuous column still?); distill to proof (what proof?); put in barrels (new or used?); age (how long?); to blend, or not to blend?; bottle. As one can see, there's just too much potential variation depending on style to make a general enough statement to not bog down the article with excessive detail. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
However, you've sort-of proven yourself wrong. You've managed in just a few lines to give a bit of an idea of how it's make. That could be expanded out into a short section and if the section doesn't do it justice, we could have a whole article on how it's made, but I reckon this is detail that people might like to know. If we end up cluttering the article too much, we could consider whittling down the Types section (i.e. moving it off to a new article and leaving a summary) to make room. JIMp talk·cont 02:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if anything, the types section should definitely stay, as those links to the articles on specific types contain the specifics of how each one is made, thereby allowing an appropriate level of variation and detail. That's the funny thing about all these different styles of whiskey: outside of being distilled from fermented cereal brains and aged in wooden barrels, they are all made pretty differently. As such, I think mentioning the general definition I just gave, with links to the proper articles on the processes (malting, mashing, fermentation, distillation, and barrel) may be sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Seems to me that Chuck Cowdery's blog is being used excessively as a reference in this article. Some of the stuff he says on the blog is simply a point of view, and there's no way of telling if he has researched the factoids (or from what sources). I believe the article should stick with traditionally published sources (books). Blogs are not seen as reliable sources as per WP:USERG. --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cowdery is the author of the book Bourbon, Straight, as well as other well known books on the topic, as well as a regular contributor to specialist magazines. He's also got decades of experience in the industry, and is recognized as such as a Kentucky Colonel. He's not just some opinionated self-published source spouting off, but one of the most reliable sources on the subject in the world. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, by whom is Col. Cowdery considered "one of the most reliable sources on the subject in the world"? Hammersbach (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, when one who is quoted on the cover of at least 3 books on whiskey (that he didn't write) it is usually a pretty good sign that respected individuals in the industry consider home to be a respected, knowledgable peer. oknazevad (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand he is published and an expert on the topic of Bourbon whiskey and the American liquor industry. But there's a difference between researched facts contained in a book, and the opinion on a blog of one expert. For example one of his "favorite whiskey myths debunked" (and the topic of "Why Spelling Matters") is persuasive, but contradicted in other expert sources on spelling whiskey. --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland to Scotland[edit]

On reading the references theres some shoddy research at best in the second paragraph of the history section. Both cited sources one 'A Short History of the Art of Distillation, by Robert James Forbes' (1948) nor the other a page on neither state distillation spread from Ireland to Scotland. In fact the latter states 'Distilling techniques were brought to Ireland and Scotland sometime between 1100 and 1300'. Therefore I have changed the sentence to the following 'The art of distillation spread to both Scotland and Ireland sometime between the 11th and 12th centuries.'Uthican (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Recently the Japanese translation for whisky was added to the section about Japanese whisky. I might have reverted this on account of there not being any other translations except for the fact that there is. The section on Welsh whisky has a translation too. Do we want translations though? Are they relevant? Are we going to add all the translations? How about the French word for whisky in the Canadian section? How about the Indian section? There are a dozen languages spoken in India. How about a translation to Spanish? Too bad: no Spanish speaking countries make whisky. How about this: leave the translations to Wiktionary? We can stick a link from here. JIMp talk·cont 08:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. Though there is one Spanish producer of whisky, if I want to know the Spanish word for it, I'd check an English-Spanish dictionary. oknazevad (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A rose is still a rose[edit]

Whisk(e)y is still whisk(e)y whether you spell it whisky or whiskey. It's the same thing. Irish whiskey and Australian whiskey are both types of whiskey/whisky. (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. JIMp talk·cont 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

actual process[edit]

Would a paragraph or two detailing the actual process be useful? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


I don't like the photo as it shows whisky with ice, which is not a typical way to consume it in its original home. We should show it being served unadulterated as per tradition, in a proper glass. --John (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I realize many in my country (US) would not. This is actually the second time it is mentioned here. Honestly, I am surprised there is nothing in this article about the "ceremony" of whisk(e)y drinking. The cult of presentation is something that always comes up whenever someone finds out I drink Scotch. Like the term "dram" never being used once in this article is conspicuous... (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the article about whisky as a whole, not Scotch whisky, so the supposed "ceremonials" simply put don't apply, as other national varieties of whisky don't have the same myths and habits about them. American whisky is rarely called a "dram", for example. And to act as if only Scotch matters is so narrow minded as to be pretty insulting, actually. And around the world people drink whisky on the rocks. So the picture is very much valid, as it reflect what is, not some idea of what should be. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I dislike the ice too. The article is about whisky, not about drinks that include whisky or ways of serving whisky. If we want to illustrate whisky, we should keep the illustration simple and to the point. Including ice seems confusing and is also not the way most people who take a serious interest in the topic would drink it. A lot of people mix whisky with Coke too, but we wouldn't illustrate the whisky article with a picture of Jack and Coke. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


The first paragraph in "History" is not about the history of whisky, but of the history of distillation in general. In fact, the word whisky doesn't even fall in this chapter. I suggest removing that content from this entry. Notice that whisky was first mentioned in 1405, whether or not people distilled perfumes and other things in the 3rd century AD is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; as one of the first/oldest distilled beverages, some level of coverage of distillation in general is needed. Especially considering the etymological for runner of the term "whisky" was a general term referring to any distilled spirits historically. oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


To me, the "bottom line" question about whiskey & other liquors is what gives their unique flavors. In a blind test, I can distinguish whiskey from rum from tequila. Most others can too. So what flavor components of whiskey/rum/tequila allow people to distinguish between them? This information should be most prominent in the wikipedia articles, IMHO. Rtdrury (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whiskey tastes the way it does primarily because of the way it is made. The original ingredients, malting, drying, fermentation, distillation, aging, dilution, further tinkering (e.g., filtering), the way it is served, and the food you've been eating all have effects. Not only does whiskey taste different from rum and tequila, but Laphroaig tastes different from Knob Creek, which tastes different from Hibiki. I'm not sure there's a whole lot we can say about all that, although it's certainly fundamental to the topic. I suppose we can look for reliable sources that provide tasting notes and ratings, and we already have some of that in various articles. I notice that the wine article has a "Tasting" section, and that there are articles about Wine tasting and Wine tasting descriptors. Similar concepts could be applied for whiskey, and perhaps we should try to do some work in that direction. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Whisky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tennessee Whiskey"[edit]

The usage and topic of Tennessee Whiskey is under discussion, see talk:Tennessee Whiskey (song) -- (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whisky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


If you go by how much discussion there is in this article about the awards given to each country's whiskies (e.g., search for the word "award"), you'd think that Taiwan, Sweden, and Australia are the leading whisky-producing countries in the world market. There is no mention of awards being given to Scottish, American, Irish, and Canadian whiskies. In fact it seems like the countries with the least significant whisky industries have the most discussion of awards. That doesn't seem appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat agree. On one hand, it's rather notable when a whisky from a country outside the traditional big four producers wins a major award. On the other hand, the emphasis here is rather WP:UNDUE, as it doesn't give the complete picture of those awards being few and far between. Sure, one group just gave a whisky of the year award to a Taiwanese whisky. Another gave it to Booker's Rye, a Jim Beam product. One of those gets mentioned here, another doesn't, because listing every time an American whiskey (or a Scotch, or Irish, or Canadian) gets an award would overwhelm the article. Trim them out as undue. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Whisky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Health Effects[edit]

Whiskey consumption has health effects. This is an important public health problem. I am attempting to add this to the whiskey article. Another editor is deleting these edits.

The alcohol in whiskey is no different than the alcohol in vodka, gin, rum, wine, or beer. The health effects of whiskey are not unique, and do not need to be called out, especially above the production process that defines the class of drinks. It's plainly WP:UNDUE, and clearly intended to push a POV, which fits with the rest of your contributions that very much look like you are here for only one purpose. Also, sign your posts. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The health effects of whiskey are not unique to whiskey. Most of the other alcoholic beverages include a "health effects" section. Your position that the health effects "do not need to be called out" does not seem to be consistent with good editing practice. I've made hundreds of edits on wikipedia, and even a cursory review of these edits will show that your assertions regarding my POV are demonstrably false. My POV is that wikipedia articles ought to provide useful information to wikipedia readers. Please revert your reversion of my edits.Sbelknap (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Im saying that whether the alcohol is drunk as whisky or any other form, it's the same alcohol, so this article does not need a specific section on health effects. Neither does any other alcoholic beverage article besides the main alcoholic drink article. Even if it were to be included, it does not need to be the third section, as that is far too prominent considering the non-uniqueness of the material. Also, more fidelity to the manual of styke would help. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My POV is that a health section in an article about whiskey should have sources that specifically address the health effects of whiskey. Not an unsourced section (attempt 2) or a sction with non-specific sources towards just alcohol (attempt 1). The Banner talk 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the article specifically about whisky, not alcoholic drinks in general. It should not contain over-broad material not specifically about whisky. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
At a minimum, a sentence about ethanol's adverse health consequences, with a link to wikipedia articles on ethanol and health seems appropriate. Is that acceptable to you?Sbelknap (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not. It is the same as writing in every article about planes that you run the risk of being shot down. At best, a single link to Alcohol (drug), will be enough. The Banner talk 22:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The analogy to planes seems specious and unpersuasive. Can you provide some logical reason why the health effects of whisky ought to be omitted from this article? Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that this would be of interest to many readers. There are also health-related issues that are specific to whisky. It would be silly to discuss those in the whisky article while omitting mention of the adverse effects of drinking ethanol. Sbelknap (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If there are health issues specific to whiskey, I assume you have the sources to back up that. But those sources should address whiskey specifically. But up to know, your claims are far to vague. The Banner talk 05:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Routine use of airplanes is almost always safe. The available evidence suggests that routine use of whisky does not improve health and (probably) harms health. Thus, the analogy between airplanes and whisky seems specious to me. I propose that the following be added to the whisky article:
The main active ingredient of whisky is alcohol, and therefore, the health effects of alcohol apply to whisky. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that moderate ethanol consumption brought no mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention from ethanol consumption.[1] A systematic analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease study found that consumption of ethanol increases the risk of cancer and increases the risk of all-cause mortality, and that the level of ethanol consumption that minimizes disease is zero consumption. [2] Some studies have concluded that drinking small quantities of alcohol (less than one drink in women and two in men) is associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and early death.[3] Some of these studies lumped former ethanol drinkers and life-long abstainers into a single group of nondrinkers, hiding the health benefits of life-long abstention from ethanol.
Whisky also contains relatively higher amounts of congener (alcohol)s than other distilled alcoholic beverages, (e.g., vodka), which may increase the health risks associated with whisky consumption. Sbelknap (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stockwell T, Zhao J, Panwar S, Roemer A, Naimi T, Chikritzhs T (March 2016). "Do "Moderate" Drinkers Have Reduced Mortality Risk? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Alcohol Consumption and All-Cause Mortality". J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 77 (2): 185–98. PMC 4803651. PMID 26997174.
  2. ^ "Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016". Lancet. August 2018. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31310-2. PMID 30146330.
  3. ^ O'Keefe, JH; Bhatti, SK; Bajwa, A; DiNicolantonio, JJ; Lavie, CJ (March 2014). "Alcohol and cardiovascular health: the dose makes the poison...or the remedy". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 89 (3): 382–93. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.11.005. PMID 24582196.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, an absolute routine flight, except that it was shot down... The Banner talk 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Nearly all of those who routinely fly on airplanes have no health consequences. Nearly all of those who routinely consume whisky *do* have health consequences. Your analogy fails. Some readers of the whisky article will find a (brief) section on the health effects of whisky to be interesting and useful. This section ought to have a brief description of the health effects of ethanol with a link to more detailed information in another article or articles. There ought to then be a description of the whisky-specific health effects of whisky. It seems unreasonable to omit a brief mention of the health effects of ethanol (which is the most important toxin in whisky) but to include a discussion of the health effects of other components of whisky. Sbelknap (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
But as stated before: please come with sources about the health risk of whiskey. The Banner talk 14:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


These statements to me seem to be saying the same thing:

  • "only a small portion consisting of traditional malt whisky, usually about 10 to 12 percent"
  • "Ninety percent of the whisky consumed in India is molasses-based".

If this is talking about two different things, maybe the wording can be changed to clarify. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I think it is trying to talk about two different issues (the percentage of true whisky in a blend, and the percentage of the market that is true whisky versus molasses products), but I think both of them are probably false. I looked at the cited Mail & Guardian article, and it doesn't seem to say anything about that. I haven't checked the NYT article due to its paywall. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Its definitely two different issues. The first is about the composition of the spirit known as "Indian whisky", the second about the popularity of that spirit in the Indian market. That latter figure is firmly sourced in the Beverage Daily reference, and also mentioned in the Mail & Guardian source, so I'm 100% confident in its accuracy. The first figure, which is stating that a typical bottle labeled as "whisky" in India is actually a blend of neutral spirits fermented and distilled from molasses with about 10% give or take of actual malt whisky is I believe accurate. While I can't access the WSJ (not NYT) reference at the moment (trying to find the account number for our print subscription so I can get past the paywall), I'm confident it's accurate, as I've seen Indian whisky sold in the US, but bearing the label "spirit whisky", which, according to American whiskey regulations, is a blend of a neutral spirit base with at least 5% whiskey, but less than 20% whiskey (which would be a "blended whiskey").
Oh, and while I was at it, I ditched the casual, flippant, prejudicial, overly close to the source first sentence. Just lousy. Frankly, it was editorializing and terrible. oknazevad (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I still don't see what the difference is but if you both agree they're different I'll go along. I also don't see what the problem was with that first sentence, as long as it's supported by a source (I didn't check). But I'm ok with leaving it out, especially since Indian whiskey isn't the same as what the rest of the world calls "whiskey". Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)