Talk:Mezcal

message: hey, i was fortunate enough to attend a lecture from the owner of the don amado distillery down in mexico, a maker of a fine Mezcal.  while there, the owner stated that the worm added into the mezcal was simply the more popular, well known additives of mezcal.  he said that each little regional distillery used to ad different little ingredients, almost like signatures, that were distinct for the area and local peoples.  he showed us a old mezcal with some kind of a nut (almonds i believe) and one with a beetle, another with some kind of berry.  he went on to say, just like the article suggests, that the modern version of con gusano was just a commercial gimmick of this traditional additive. so, i don't know if this is true, does anyone know  more about this?
--Joe_Volcano69.110.32.204 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems more likely to me that the additive would be a guarantee for alcohol content rather than quality. If the bottle is diluted (in a bar for example) the content would lose its preserving effect and the organic additive at the bottom would start to decay. Using a worm that only lives on agave would of course have the side effect of indicating origin as well as being a memorable gimmick. moliate (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worms and other additives 

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

message: "Contrary to public belief, tequila is, by law, not allowed to contain the worm."
Whose law is this?  Mexico's?  Los Estados Unidos?  Some other country's?
:The mexican government controls the production of Tequila, but there is a complex relationship with private certification organizations. I believe that international enforcement is done through trademark law. -Harmil 02:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose Law Is It Anyway? 

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

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

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

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

message: Or is that dangerous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.199.158 (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 8, 2006
::It's probably safe to eat the worm. They wouldn't put anything toxic in the bottle. --Jcmaco 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you swallow it whole or chew it? Maikel (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the worm be eaten? 

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

message: I read the article, but was disappointed that one of the videos was completely in Spanish.  It would be cool if subtitles or a voiceover were there for:  
http://www.veoh.com/channels/mezcalembajador 
This was in the section that said:
"A number of objects are frequently added into mezcal bottles along with the mezcal itself. These can include worms, scorpions, and decorative elements such as glass sculptures with gold leaf (see Mezcal Embajador bottles)."
Peter10003 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

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

message: Is there a definitive difference between mezcal and tequila?  Or is mezcal simply a type of tequila — with the worm in it?  --MicahBrwn (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try reading the article on Mezcal. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mezcal vs. Tequila 

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

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

message: Present text in Wikipedia "As the regulations allow any agaves, provided that they are not used as the primary material in other governmental Denominations of Origin. Notably, this regulation means that mezcal cannot be made from blue agave"
If I were to interpret the regulations, in NOM-070-SCFI-1994, I would say that blue agave cannot be used for mescal if such is being used to produce another beverage (read tequila) whose name is geographically protected WITHIN THE SAME STATE.  So producing mezcal from blue agave in Oaxaca is not a violation, but would be in Tamaulipas, Guanajuato and Michoacan (as these are three of the five states that can legally produce tequila (whose name is protected denomination of origin) which has to mandatorily made with minimum 51% blue agave and no other species)
Perfection161 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Blue Agave be used to make Mezcal

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

message: I did not remove any sourced material from the article. It was all still there after my edit. Also you are adding your sources in the wrong place. You can put sources in the lead if you want, but they need to go in the History section first. See WP:LEADCITE. I will fix this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. Your edit was in the way, I had to revert the article back to the January version prior to CMD007's edits. Please feel free to reinstate your tweaks to the lead. I have no issues with you shortening it whatsoever. Although again, as per the (academic) references, the source of the distillation technology is from the Philippines, not Spain.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

text: P.S. CMD007's unsourced changes is also the reason why the History section didn't make sense. He deleted a large part of it and inserted "brandy" and "vineyards" in there, replacing "vino de coco" and "coconut plantations" respectively (per sources). Neither brandy nor vineyards were ever banned. Vino de coco and similar locally-produced liquors (mezcal, sotol, etc.) were banned precisely because they competed with the sales of imported Spanish liquor like brandy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok, sorry for flying off the handle and blaming you for something someone else did. Thank you for being gracious and thank you for fixing this. I'll give it a few days then see if I can do something with the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Brandy? It’s obvious that is European, I didn’t write anything about it being banned or burned. Why would it be burned? They burned palms. Also, please stop deleting the sources of the origins of distillation practices in Mexico. There is a plethora of sources that show it was from our Spanish ancestors. There is nothing about the Philippines in any mainstream literature and it would be ridiculous to think that the Filipino slaves would bring whole distilling machines with them to Mexico. Perhaps some stills made it with Novohispanic merchants, but the over exaggerated history of it being practically entirely of Filipino origin is utterly ridiculous. No historian in Mexico or Spain would agree to that. Why would the Spanish need a technology they already possessed and used with skill? Vino de coco already has its own page called Lamboang or something like that. That is Filipino —not mezcal and certainly not the origins of it. Please stop trying to rewrite history. One article by a writer that just wants to plug his country and make fantastical conclusions isn’t sufficient to go against oodles of other sources that say differently. CMD007 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to start a section on the talk page and discuss this before making your changes. What you are doing now is going to lead to an edit war. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he is deleting at least 6 sources that say the opposite of his one source means he is engaging in edit-warring already. Why aren’t those sources protected? They were there first and all say the same thing, which is not aligned with his article’s “hypothesis”. CMD007 (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: The source you cited for "fermented agave to be distilled into mezcal is still called pulque" does not say that. All it says is that the agave sap can be converted to a non-distilled alcoholic beverage called pulque. This is the standard definition of pulque. Mezcal is not distilled from fermented agave sap. It is distilled from fermented piña. Your quote does not mention mezcal. If you want to say that fermented piña is also called pulque, that would be a new non-standard definition of the word "pulque" and we would need a source citation to support that. Your source does not say that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is literally the same thing. The agave that is fermented turns into pulque, hence they call it pulque. In other words, the word pulque is still used for the same exact thing it’s always been used for. 1 + 1 = 2. CMD007 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed for "fermented agave to be distilled into mezcal is still called pulque" 

message: I suggest that the entire paragraph about Curtis be removed. It has nothing to do with mezcal. When Curtis says "mescal" he's talking about the agave plant, not about distilled liquor (this is explained in the footnote on page 22). I removed this once but got reverted with no explanation, possibly as collateral damage from the ongoing edit war. Maybe when the edits settle down someone can do this.
I also suggest that the cantaro and gusano images have the "upright" param added to them. The gusano image in particular is crowding into the following section on my fairly narrow screen. Again I already did this once and got reverted with no explanation. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. CMD007 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curtis 

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

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

message: This seems like weird marketing stuff. Where does this notion come from? Jasdasra (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  considered a drink of artisan origin 

message: It’s NEVER spelled mescal, the correct form is mezcal. Please delete that because it’s a mistake 2806:2A0:F14:83BB:18D6:624A:80A6:A446 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would consider the New York Times to be a reliable source. Do you have a source that says it's never spelled mescal? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction:  

message: Are you , editing anonymously? I see you've re-applied some of his edits, using the same sources. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMD007 

message: Cocktails names are not proper nouns, at least not on Wikipedia. There are pointers to the relevant discussions at Talk:List of cocktails#Requested move 23 November 2022. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard and four people commenting doesn't represent a solid consensus to move an entire class of articles to sentence case. Everything from Merriam-Webster to cocktail history books capitalize the names of known cocktails. Not to mention every bar menu on the planet. Steven Walling • talk 04:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocktail names are not proper nouns 

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