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.
B checklist
 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.

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)
Not to be too much of a snob, but there are countries that have contributed significantly to the history and culture of whiskey, then there are countries that have been making it for a decade or 2. It seems a bit odd to include England, Finland, et cetera with the United States, Scotland, or Japan. I think it makes sense to list countries with significant contribution in development of style, or at least sales volume, then a listing of countries significance... this article reads borderline trivial in nature, and I know that's not the intention. 01:57, 6 May 2020 (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)

The word whiskey/whisky comes from the Irish word uisge, The oldest evidence for whiskey comes from Ireland. This whole article is ridiculous, by the same logic any beer on Wikipedia should have a history of beer and the origins of that particular brand of beer kept ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You missed the point that Classical Gaelic was once spoken both in Ireland and Scotland. The Banner talk 07:25, 11 October 2019 (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)

By country[edit]

Any (reliable) production figures, by country?

Google tells me Scotland, Ireland, India, USA, all lead - depending on the site.

MBG02 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Something out of place on the 'See also' section of the article?[edit]

The 'See also' section of this article contains what looks like an out of place piece of text (#Whiskey). Xboxsponge15 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a section link. When placed on a page in double square brackets, it jumps the reader to that section. When appended to a wiki link to another article, as is the case here, it jumps to that section of the linked article. Here it's directing the reader to the section specifically about cocktails made with whisky, which presumably a reader coming from the article on whisky would want to read about the most. oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)