Talk:Canadian whisky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compliant[edit]

Okay, I will have to ask: what make this non-compliant? George Leung 09:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it probably needs to be a little more complete. I think it is neutral and encyclopedic. Philvarner 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I would love to see some history included here, if anyone knows it. When was Rye whiskey first made in canada, where? How and where was it sold? What are the oldest Rye Whiskey breweries in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Lord Calvert?[edit]

No Lord Calvert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.113.211 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness! --Real Deuce (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the US brands bottled in the States. It does not exist north of the border. Varlaam (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So despite the fact that it's made in Canada by Canadians using Canadian ingredients and legally referred to as Canadian whisky, it's defining feature is that it's labeled in the US? Hmmm... Hammersbach (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Rye Whiskies?[edit]

I found in Germany a bottle of "Canadian Old Century, 3 Jears Old Canadian Whisky, Original High Quality Canadian Product", probably a brand created by the importer(blender?).The price is about 7 €, so this is just a standard product. On the back you can read: Old Century is a high quality Canadian Blended Whisky. It consists of several fine double rye whiskies..... Can somebody explain what "double rye" means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably means that the product is made using twice as much rye as some other whiskies. Most likely it is similar to "high quality" - i.e., it probably means practically nothing at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been drinking rye since around 1970. "Double rye" is not a term I know, and rye is my favourite drink.
Old Century is not a Canadian brand. The Americans also buy Canadian whisky in bulk and create their own brands.
But 7 € sounds like a good price. We pay maybe 15 € for 750ml.
Varlaam (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)[reply]

Legal definitions (or, "Why does this article spend so much time on American Whiskey?")[edit]

Definition for Whisky /Whiskey (From the German article Whisky) Innerhalb der Europäischen Union muss Whisk(e)y die in der Verordnung Nr. 110/2008 vom 15. Januar 2008 festgelegten Kriterien erfüllen:[5]

  • durch Destillieren von Getreidemalzmaische gewonnen sein
  • zu einem Alkoholgehalt von weniger als 94,8 Volumenprozent destilliert werden
  • mindestens drei Jahre lang in Holzfässern mit einem Fassungsvermögen von 700 Litern oder weniger reifen
  • einen Mindestalkoholgehalt von 40 Volumenprozent aufweisen

Translation:

  • Must be destilled from mash out of grain and malt

(grain can be barley, rye, wheat, spelt, oat, rice, corn, may be even buckwheat, ... but not potatoes, sugar cane, sugar beets, molasses, wine, beer, cidre, pomace, wood, yeast, fruits ...)

  • Must be distilled to an alcohol content of the spirits of less than 94,8% by volume
  • Must be aged for at least three years in wooden barrels of not greater than 700 liter capacity
  • Must have a minimum alcohol content of 40% by volume

Inside the European Community nothing may be selled as "Whisky" or "Whiskey" that does not meet this rules. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The EU has absolutely no relavance to determining what is Canadian whisky. It's Canadian, not European. So the above is meaningless is in regards to this article.
The same can be said for the US. Which brings me to my question. Entirely too much of the section on labeling is devoted to the definitions of American whiskey varieties. I understand that the purpose is to show that the Canadian laws regarding whisky are less stringent and restrictive. But it's just too much; this is the article on Canadian whisky, and an outsize amount of text simply duplicates the American whiskey article. I'm going to simplify as best I can, to preserve the contrasts, but without needlessly repeating the American whiskey (and Bourbon, for that matter) article. oknazevad (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the practices and regulations for making Canadian whiskey are compared to those for other products, it seems impossible for people to understand what makes one type of product substantially different from another. The differences in regulations are much of what makes the typical Canadian whisky taste different than Scotch, Bourbon or Irish whiskey, so I suggest that the comparison information is very valuable and should not be removed. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point being made it that the comparison(s) being made are way overdone, and I concur with that assessment. Hammersbach (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"several HUNDRED years ago"?[edit]

This would be in regard to whiskeys made in a country that has only existed since 1867? Ken Burch 07:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well it's not like everyone just moved there in 1867! Actually, 1867 is just when the Canadian Constitution created the modern federal government. Canada as a name predates that by centuries, even if the government has changed. So Canada is a lot older than 1867, and distillation has been done there since at least the 18th century. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (PS, new comments go on the bottom)[reply]

Whiskey blanc/white whiskey[edit]

Which is a Canadian clear aged whiskey variety that seems to have been missed (as well as from the listbox listing of varieties) - I am without decent references but a google search brings up some hits - I came looking because I found a redlink on Chasse-galerie, a folk tale about flying Voyageurs and the consequences of their having had a few too many "white" whiskeys... Note that this isn't the same stuff the Americans call white whiskey, as that isn't usually aged and has ties with moonshiners. cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Distilleries and Brands section[edit]

This article currently includes a list of Distilleries. It doesn't include any specific criteria for what should be listed, but what has been listed thus far has been distilleries that are currently operating and producing "Canadian Whisky", though the list is incomplete. User:Oknazevad removed the Wayne Gretzky Distillery from the list (I re-added it but he again removed it) saying it is "too small to be significant". So, open question: should there be a criteria for this list? If so, what? Of course, the listings should be verifiable. But why should one distillery be included and not another? Any ideas and examples or guidelines can be considered. I have invited Oknazevad elaborate on his thoughts on an appropriate threshold. maclean (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size should matter, but the we should define it based on other notable characteristics such as international and national awards. Local awards should not play a large part in the selection. If a brand is available across the nation, it should probably be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. The Canadian Whisky Awards has been operated since 2010 and includes numerous categories such as Distillery of the Year and Artisanal Distiller of the Year, while the World Whiskies Awards has been around since 2006 and includes a couple categories for Canadian brands (or releases). I would agree that anything that a distillery that produces that wins one of these awards could be included here. I'm not 100% caught up with liquor distribution laws but I know that distribution is organized by province. I would think that reaching a multi-province audience would make a distillery relevant enough for a note here. As for size, are you referring to the article/list size (the article is only at 16 kB readable prose size, well under the WP:SIZERULE's 40 kB threshold) or distiller capacity/brand sales figures? There are 8 big distilleries and about 50 micro, though I don't know what the dividing line is. The article currently doesn't cover microdistilleries at all. I was developing the article but stopped short of reaching this point. maclean (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I spoke of size, I meant volume of production, not size of article. Each current entry mentions that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. For background, this section was originally based on the Irish whiskey#Distilleries in Ireland list which is nearing 100 entries. maclean (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and I remember even a few years ago when everyone talked about there being only three working distilleries on the island. (New Middleton, Old Bushmills, and Cooley, to be exact). I do have to question the inclusion of some of those, though, as it seems like folks have jukped the gun to add every announcement without any consideration of whether the plans have actually come to fruition, and with insufficient third-party sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you note there are many small distilleries around the country. Why should one be listed when others aren't? This is a common issue with list articles, as non-notable entries too easily slip in, and yet the selection of some over others also raises questions about maintaining a neutral point of view and not favoring some over others through inclusion. Well, to that end, I think limiting the list to distilleries that are owned by producers that have their own articles is the way to go. There's little about the Gretzky brand that makes it stand out compared to other micro-distillers other than it bears the name of a famous hockey player who used to own a share of the company a long time ago (and who sold that share long before they started making whisky). So including it and not others only makes it seem more significant than it actually is, unintentionally skewing NPOV. That's why I don't think we should include it. oknazevad (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for discussing. If I understand your point (and correct me if I'm mistaken), you believe that listing one distillery and not another introduces a bias (this is WP:BIAS; the neutral point of view thing is more about distinguishing differing views). But isn't removing micro-distillery entries bias against micro-distilleries? The proposition to use the Wikipedia:Notability criteria (used to justify creating articles) for justifying inclusion onto this list skews the article to favouring big producers. Within articles, it is normally Wikipedia:Verifiability that moderates content inclusion. maclean (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is including only one minor producer and no others biases the article by treating that producer as more important. It's not uncommon for list articles to only include entries that have their own Wikipedia articles, as that's a way to limit the inclusion of trivial entries that only have primary sources, a favored tactic of self-promotion seen often here. Does it have an effect of only including the big players in a market, sure, but for a generalist encyclopedia, I don't really see the issue with that. We don't need to be exhaustive in an overview article. oknazevad (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should strive to be complete. In terms of Canadian whiskey, that means including micro-distilleries. Beer in Canada doesn't seem to have a problem including mentions of craft breweries that don't have pre-existing articles, likewise Distillers in Canada. It is the very long lists that use the 'must have an existing article' criteria, like List of bands from Canada. This section will, in the long term, be converted to prose. These articles are built up incrementally and restricting content inhibits development. Deal with self-promotion when it comes, but only in so far as Wikipedia:Editing policy's WP:PRESERVE and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. So for now, if we must have a criteria beyond the core content policies, then how about a distillery may be added to this section if it is in operation and has at least one reference to a secondary source, like a book, newspaper, magazine or professional website such as canadianwhisky.org, inclusive of the articles that denote the distillery won a Canadian Whisky Award? maclean (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Id be okay with that as long as the sources are genuinely third-party coverage of the distillery and not merely routine reviews or puff pieces. It's not a high hurdle to cross. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a third-party in this case. Sometimes what appears to be a third-party is actually an advertising arm of the distillery, or a collection of them. And WP:SIGCOV of the distillery, not a passing mention in the weekend entertainment section of a major paper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Passing mentions, routine coverage, and such are not enough. Sustained or significant coverage are needed. oknazevad (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's the criteria used for creating an article and excessive for a list inclusion or mentioning in article on a broader topic. While I'm still not clear on why this article is being singled out to be edited inconsistent with WP editing policies, I can accept that compromise is required at times. So to be more, precise how about a distillery can only be mentioned if it is described in de Kergommeaux's Canadian Whisky or the the distillery won a Canadian Whisky Award with internet/news articles denoting this win as sufficient for as reference? maclean (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_whisky&oldid=1194979788"