This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mezcal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SummerStudent.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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_Volcano 69.110.32.204 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
While this is not an answer, it is a further inquiry about the worm. I just got my bartending and mixology certification from BartenderOne and the instructor mentioned that the reason for adding the worm initially in mezcal was to determine if it was up to par in drinking standards. He said that if the worm was fine and still intact at the bottom of the bottle after x amount of time, the mezcal was drinkable, but if it disintegrated then the mezcal was not drinkable. Has anyone else come across something similar to this? Mattafuga 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I had learned that the worm was a legal measure introduced in the nineteenth century designed to assure the purity of mezcal. The story goes that fermentable materials cheaper than agave hearts have always been added to the mash and, to demonstrate that a mezcal contained a high proportion of agave, chiniquiles and meocuiles (which live only in maguey plants, not in sugarcane or maize) were included with each bottle. This story is as romantic and as semi-plausible as the others given here. The business about the worms adding a special flavor to the mezcal, however, does not survive even the most cursory of organoleptic investigation. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
The section about the worm seems to be mostly just a copy of a paragraph from the tequila article about its improper use in tequila, rather than its actual use in mezcal. 149.160.81.35 ( talk) 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if (in the spirit of standard units and other wikipedia guidelines) the old proof numbers referred should be changed to percentages.
As I read the manual of style, articles dealing with mezcal and tequila ought to use the units of measurement of Mexico. Here in Mexico, we measure our alcoholic beverages with the Guy-Lussac scale and express those measurements as volumetric percent (standard temperature and pressure being implied). Products labeled for sale in the U.S. will also show proof strength. But the original poster of this question has a good point, that our liquors ought to be described in terms of, say, 40 G.L. or "40% Alc. Vol." rather than 80 proof. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
Just a quick point, and no disagreement, but "proof" strengths aren't used in the UK except conversationally; the official measurements, and what people actually use when comparing drinks, are percentages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.108.10 ( talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"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 law is promulgated by Mexico's Secretaria de Economia through the Normas Oficiales Mexicanas. Tequila is specified by NOM-006. < http://www.economia-noms.gob.mx/> The standards specific to tequila are enforced through its trade organization, the Consejo Regulador de Tequila, A.C. < http://www.crt.org.mx/> The CRT also controls the labeling of tequilas sold on the international market. The standards for mezcal in general are NOM-070. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
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)
Here is why: While Tequila is a mezcal made only from the blue agave plant in the region around Tequila, Jalisco, spirits labeled "Mezcal" are made from other agave plants and are not part of the Tequila family
The spirits labeled "Mezcal" will be the ones that might contain the worm. Monte Albán is a brand name of this type of spirit. Tequila is a kind of mezcal, and that particular kind is the one that cannot have the worm by law.~ Enrique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.156.215 ( talk) 04:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I meant "destilado de agave" not "destilado de maguey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin1944 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Historically, "mezcal" and "tequila" were similar to "brandy" and "Cognac" in that the first describes the genus and the second describes a species. (They are both masculine, by the way, because they are ellyptical for "el aguardiente de mezcal" and "el aguardiente del mezcal de Tequila".) Nowadays, however, both terms have a legal meaning as well. You can make a "tequila" with only 51% Agave tequilensis Weber in the mash so long as you do so within a geographically defined region and follow the procedures required by law. If you're within the Tequila region but want to make your distillate out of Agave angustifolia, then you'll have to call it a mezcal. Anytime you vary from the specifications of "tequila" or "mezcal" you have to call your product something different. "Destilado de agave" is the most common descriptor for these variants ... I think I've even seen "destilado de maguey" but I can't be certain ... there are also "elixir de agave", "licor de agave", and "mezcal de Tequila". I've even seen bottles of "aguardiente de cana" for what I thought would be rum. Things have become very confusing ever since the Mexican version of Republicans took office. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
Or is that dangerous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.199.158 ( talk • contribs) 07:41, June 8, 2006
- Except for the alcohol... ha ha... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.111.236 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, June 14, 2006
I always eat the worm in my mezcal (which is one of my favorite alcohols) and thus far have felt no Ill effects from it. I have also seen mezcals with scorpions, though I wouldn't eat that! -John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.21.216 ( talk • contribs) 11:38, April 12, 2007
Does anyone know of the traditional religious aspects of mezcal consumption? Schabot 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Pulque is depicted in Native American stone carvings from as early as 200 AD. The origin of pulque is unknown, but because it has a major position in religion, many folk tales explain its origins. According to one pre-Columbian legendary account, during the reign of Tecpancaltzin, a Toltec noble named Papantzin discovered the secret of extracting aguamiel from the maguey plant.[citation needed] Prior to the Spanish conquest, the Aztecs consumed it at religious ceremonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.205.69 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, February 24, 2007
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)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} 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)
kiwkhdhdvfo[ihwef]ihwe'[fhw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.99.222 ( talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
In the section on the production of mezcal, it is incorrectly stated that mezcal is distilled only once, not twice like tequila. I know that the author cites two sources, but this is factually not true. Mezcal is distilled twice, the first distillation is referred to as punta. Punta comes out at 75 degrees alcohol (150% ABV), thus it would be necessary to distill again to bring the alcohol percentage down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.38.170 ( talk) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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)Sanjit Keskar Perfection161 ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
This seems like weird marketing stuff. Where does this notion come from? Jasdasra ( talk) 22:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mezcal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SummerStudent.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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_Volcano 69.110.32.204 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
While this is not an answer, it is a further inquiry about the worm. I just got my bartending and mixology certification from BartenderOne and the instructor mentioned that the reason for adding the worm initially in mezcal was to determine if it was up to par in drinking standards. He said that if the worm was fine and still intact at the bottom of the bottle after x amount of time, the mezcal was drinkable, but if it disintegrated then the mezcal was not drinkable. Has anyone else come across something similar to this? Mattafuga 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I had learned that the worm was a legal measure introduced in the nineteenth century designed to assure the purity of mezcal. The story goes that fermentable materials cheaper than agave hearts have always been added to the mash and, to demonstrate that a mezcal contained a high proportion of agave, chiniquiles and meocuiles (which live only in maguey plants, not in sugarcane or maize) were included with each bottle. This story is as romantic and as semi-plausible as the others given here. The business about the worms adding a special flavor to the mezcal, however, does not survive even the most cursory of organoleptic investigation. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
The section about the worm seems to be mostly just a copy of a paragraph from the tequila article about its improper use in tequila, rather than its actual use in mezcal. 149.160.81.35 ( talk) 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if (in the spirit of standard units and other wikipedia guidelines) the old proof numbers referred should be changed to percentages.
As I read the manual of style, articles dealing with mezcal and tequila ought to use the units of measurement of Mexico. Here in Mexico, we measure our alcoholic beverages with the Guy-Lussac scale and express those measurements as volumetric percent (standard temperature and pressure being implied). Products labeled for sale in the U.S. will also show proof strength. But the original poster of this question has a good point, that our liquors ought to be described in terms of, say, 40 G.L. or "40% Alc. Vol." rather than 80 proof. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
Just a quick point, and no disagreement, but "proof" strengths aren't used in the UK except conversationally; the official measurements, and what people actually use when comparing drinks, are percentages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.108.10 ( talk) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"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 law is promulgated by Mexico's Secretaria de Economia through the Normas Oficiales Mexicanas. Tequila is specified by NOM-006. < http://www.economia-noms.gob.mx/> The standards specific to tequila are enforced through its trade organization, the Consejo Regulador de Tequila, A.C. < http://www.crt.org.mx/> The CRT also controls the labeling of tequilas sold on the international market. The standards for mezcal in general are NOM-070. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
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)
Here is why: While Tequila is a mezcal made only from the blue agave plant in the region around Tequila, Jalisco, spirits labeled "Mezcal" are made from other agave plants and are not part of the Tequila family
The spirits labeled "Mezcal" will be the ones that might contain the worm. Monte Albán is a brand name of this type of spirit. Tequila is a kind of mezcal, and that particular kind is the one that cannot have the worm by law.~ Enrique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.156.215 ( talk) 04:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I meant "destilado de agave" not "destilado de maguey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin1944 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Historically, "mezcal" and "tequila" were similar to "brandy" and "Cognac" in that the first describes the genus and the second describes a species. (They are both masculine, by the way, because they are ellyptical for "el aguardiente de mezcal" and "el aguardiente del mezcal de Tequila".) Nowadays, however, both terms have a legal meaning as well. You can make a "tequila" with only 51% Agave tequilensis Weber in the mash so long as you do so within a geographically defined region and follow the procedures required by law. If you're within the Tequila region but want to make your distillate out of Agave angustifolia, then you'll have to call it a mezcal. Anytime you vary from the specifications of "tequila" or "mezcal" you have to call your product something different. "Destilado de agave" is the most common descriptor for these variants ... I think I've even seen "destilado de maguey" but I can't be certain ... there are also "elixir de agave", "licor de agave", and "mezcal de Tequila". I've even seen bottles of "aguardiente de cana" for what I thought would be rum. Things have become very confusing ever since the Mexican version of Republicans took office. xolotl_tj 25 September 2007
Or is that dangerous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.199.158 ( talk • contribs) 07:41, June 8, 2006
- Except for the alcohol... ha ha... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.111.236 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, June 14, 2006
I always eat the worm in my mezcal (which is one of my favorite alcohols) and thus far have felt no Ill effects from it. I have also seen mezcals with scorpions, though I wouldn't eat that! -John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.21.216 ( talk • contribs) 11:38, April 12, 2007
Does anyone know of the traditional religious aspects of mezcal consumption? Schabot 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Pulque is depicted in Native American stone carvings from as early as 200 AD. The origin of pulque is unknown, but because it has a major position in religion, many folk tales explain its origins. According to one pre-Columbian legendary account, during the reign of Tecpancaltzin, a Toltec noble named Papantzin discovered the secret of extracting aguamiel from the maguey plant.[citation needed] Prior to the Spanish conquest, the Aztecs consumed it at religious ceremonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.205.69 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, February 24, 2007
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)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} 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)
kiwkhdhdvfo[ihwef]ihwe'[fhw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.99.222 ( talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
In the section on the production of mezcal, it is incorrectly stated that mezcal is distilled only once, not twice like tequila. I know that the author cites two sources, but this is factually not true. Mezcal is distilled twice, the first distillation is referred to as punta. Punta comes out at 75 degrees alcohol (150% ABV), thus it would be necessary to distill again to bring the alcohol percentage down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.38.170 ( talk) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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)Sanjit Keskar Perfection161 ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
This seems like weird marketing stuff. Where does this notion come from? Jasdasra ( talk) 22:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)