Talk:Mezcal

The lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mezcal distillation started with Filipino introduction of distillation technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curtis

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

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

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

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

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

Vino de coco

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

The lead again

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

considered a drink of artisan origin

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

Correction:

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

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

CMD007

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

Cocktail names are not proper nouns

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

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

Confused geography

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

I have taken this out. In addition to the problems I noted above, Humboldt could not have published this in 1803, because he didn't return until 1804. The title is wrong, it's "Essay" not "Treatise" ("Essai politique sur le royaume de la Nouvelle-Espagne" in the original French). I have checked both the second French edition of 1827 and the Kutzinski and Ette translation and neither one mentions mezcal unless he's calling it by some other name. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)