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 within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Someone just changed the description of aging from referring to "barrels" to referring to "containers" – and rightly so, it appears. The law does seem to say "containers", not "barrels", although I think the containers are barrels in actual practice. The only mention of barrels in the law is something allowing labels to refer to government supervision of the production process in specific cases. I've never heard of someone using a non-barrel container to age bourbon (although I'm no expert). Does anyone have insight over why the law says "containers" rather than "barrels"? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conceivably the container could have a different shape, so the law is broadly worded to include all of the possibilities. At least that's my guess. That said, no one uses anything but barrels, because barrels are a superior container for transportation of liquids. Hence oil barrels. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Bourbon whiskey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
No, they're not identical. The Lincoln County process is a filtering of the new-make spirit before barrel aging, while the charcoal filtering mentioned on some bourbon bottles is after aging as part of the bottling process. That filtering is simply removing unwanted solids and fatty eaters that can cloud a drink. It's not the same thing. oknazevad (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are different kinds of filtering, as you say. Sometimes, it is the same thing.
HOWEVER, this could (and should) be something discussed in the article.
So, are the reverters of this content saying that 'hazmat' proof bourbon is not a thing? Google searches of "hazmat proof bourbon" turn up quite a bit of responses on the subject. I grant you it would be nice to have stronger citations for it. But to pretend it doesn't exist seems odd. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk03:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Hazmat” bourbon refers to a niche category of whiskey known for its exceptionally high proof, often exceeding 140 proof (70% ABV). The term “hazmat” is derived from the fact that these whiskeys are considered highly flammable hazardous materials. In fact, they are banned from being brought onto airplanes by the FAA due to their volatile nature. These ultra-high proof bourbons are a rare breed and have become a sought-after subset of American whiskey.
The allure of hazmat whiskey lies in its extreme potency, attracting whiskey enthusiasts who appreciate intense flavors and robust character. However, it’s essential to note that this jet fuel-style whiskey isn’t for the uninitiated. Whiskey diehards are the primary group seeking out these high-proof gems1.
How does the proof get so high?
Initially, the whiskey entering the barrel must be high in proof, although there’s a limit (125 proof) set by TTB regulations.
As bourbon ages in the barrel, its proof levels change due to various factors, including temperature fluctuations. Barrels placed on lower floors of rickhouses tend to lose proof, while those on higher floors gain proof.
Some distilleries intentionally create ultra-high proof bourbons using specific barrel formats and aging climates. For instance, Kings County Distillery has released whiskeys that exceeded 140 proof, even reaching 177.4 proof in a 5-gallon barrel1.
The rise of barrel-proof whiskey has contributed to the popularity of hazmat bourbons. Two decades ago, releasing barrel-strength products was uncommon, but as the bourbon boom occurred, more companies sought to differentiate themselves. Single barrels, wine cask finishes, and barrel strength became sought-after features, challenging the traditional notion that American drinkers preferred whiskey in the 80-100 proof range1.
In summary, hazmat bourbon is a supercharged, high-proof whiskey that pushes the boundaries of intensity and flavor, appealing to those who crave bold experiences in their glass.
I'm fine with it. At first glance, the intial site looked spammy to me. That was my only objection, but I may have misread it. I'm ok with this going forward. Jauerbackdude?/dude.13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is only one labeled as such in your part of the world. Branding/labeling is not the only consideration. It is a niche Bourbon type. But the sources say otherwise. WP:Verifiability should suffice. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Large language models like Copilot are not reliable sources (see WP:RSPCHATGPT). As for the term itself, comes off like a marketing neologism that popped up out of nowhere (meaning some ad agency) and quickly got pushed out into churnalism. Im ray of any term in this field that can't show some use of more than a few years. oknazevad (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'hazmat' term is showing up 5 or more years ago in my Google searches and it applies to multiple brands. From 2018: "SHARE WITH: Folks who enjoy an iconic barrel proof Bourbon and aren't afraid of whiskeys lovingly referred to as hazmat." [1] Also, AI is less a concern than whether we have adequate sources for the term. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk20:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing others, calling it "hazmat bourbon" and defining it as a recognized category seems like a neologism used only in recent sources (earliest above in 2018) rather than something well established as a widely recognized term or category. It should be mentioned as only such a neologism. It would be nice to find some history about the federal regulation for air travel, as there is no mention of that regulation in the Bacardi 151 article. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to note I just used 2018 as an example of how far back the term was being used definitionally, but it doesn't appear to be the earliest point. Here are 2016 blog links ([2], [3]) that provides a definition for the term 'hazmat'. Perhaps the article should say "mid-2010s". Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk23:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
