Jump to content

Talk:Jack Daniel's/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Origin of the name, and accuracy of the content of the label

It should be noted that the name of the business dates back to when it was first incorporated. At this time, Mr. Daniel was already deceased, and Mr. Motlow incorporated it as "Jack Daniel Distillery, Lem Motlow Prop., Inc." So this was the legal name when Brown-Foreman bought it from Mr. Motlow's heirs. As regards to the population of Lynchburg, the label was copyrighted as a whole and included the population, which apparently dates back to the 1960 census. Lynchburg has long since been combined with Moore County as a whole, and this combined area has approximately 5800 persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlquall (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 June 2004 (UTC)

I readjusted the proportions of the Jack Daniels bottle image. The former version was ridiculously obtrusive and unprofessional. Earthliberator 06:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grilling sauce

Article H. J. Heinz Company says, there is a grilling sauce called Jack Daniels. Is that true? --Abdull 21:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, although I can't remember it's official name. DirectorStratton 08:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen both Grilling Sauces and Marinades in my local grocery store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.100.33 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2006‎ (UTC)

It's true. Basically (this is from the label), Heinz uses the name under license from the distillery and uses what it calls "Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey Flavoring" in the sauces, marinades, etc. 130.215.239.89 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancestors

81.101.79.46 commented: Please note, the above information is incorrect in relation to Jack Daniel's ancestors, who were in fact, of Welsh descent. feydey 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Jack Daniels born in Ceredigion and from Aberystwyth before he moved to tennessee? Some crappy html page about his geneology is not a good refernce.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.145.38 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Animal House trivia

According to the wiki entry for Animal House John Belushi really did chug straight Jack, but on here it says it was ice tea. Can someone find out which is true? Jrssr5 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

~~While some would like to believe that Belushi really did guzzle an entire bottle of JD in Animal House, the truth is that Belushi really guzzled a bottle of iced tea. This fact was revealed during a 30th Anniversary Animal House TV special by Belushi's co-stars. 2 factors also bear this out - 1)When Belushi is guzzling the contents of the bottle, you can see suds in the bottle, which Jack Daniels doesn't do. And 2), If Belushi really HAD tried to guzzle an entire bottle of JD at the quick rate in the movie, even someone of Belushi's size and stature would have suffered severe alcohol poisoning. 209.91.30.57 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Song mentions

Last night I added the trivia item:

  • Jack Daniels features very heavily in the song "Old No. 7" (obviously), by recent rock band Big Cock. It is the 10th track on their debut album "Year Of The Cock".

Perhaps someone saw it as a joke and removed it. The band does indeed exist (www.bigcockrocks.com). They are a classic 'hair metal' band and one of their songs is indeed titles "Old No. 7" and is entirely about said whiskey.

Please, this is not a joke, it is a real item of trivia, and should not be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.47.169 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But does it add to the article at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Chupanibre (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

*Yeah but Kei$ha also references to the drink too in her song 'Tic-Toc', and so we would have to include that too. For the sake of maintaining the image of a respectable whiskey, let's just not do that 82.43.66.211 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack and coke

CLOSED - the jack and coke article has been merged with the Highball (cocktail) article Philvarner 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a merge suggestion with the Jack and coke article. Its really small, and should just be a minor header under here I think. Tumples 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and to show my disagreement, I have revamped the woebegone Jack and Coke article. Reasoning: if I walk into a bar in any state in the United States, I am able to order a "Jack and Coke" just as easily as a Rum and Coke (known to Wikipedians as the Cuba Libre) or a Gin and Tonic, two drinks that IMHO are in the same category as Jack and Coke (spirit + carbonated soda). Both of these have pages of their own. Additionally, the term "Jack and Coke" is often applied to other whiskey-and-cola mixtures regardless of brand, so to put it in with Jack Daniel's seems a bit assumptive. I won't take the suggestion down, as I am (apparently) in the minority and also would like others to air their opinions, but I would hope that someone would take it down soon. Lioux 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - Jack and Coke should be merged into a cocktails article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philvarner (talk • contribs) 06:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Bogus advertising

Perhaps there should be some mention of the fact that JDs was banned for a number of years, through prohibition, and that the advertising which implies a broken line to Jack Daniel himself is trash. Either they stopped making it, or they were making it illegally. --MacRusgail 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a better reference to the advertising or the specific claim they made, I should point out that many distilleries stayed open through prohibition to make medicinal alcohol. So your criticism is worth checking out, but is by no means an exhaustive listing of the possibilities. 69.200.93.103 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article (from an academic journal, so I suppose that's a sufficiently reliable source) states that the distillery did in fact close down when prohibition began and did not resume production until 1938, five years after the repeal of prohibition. If desired, I can add something to that effect in the article. SchnitteUK (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing slave information

I removed the statement about Jack Daniels being a slave. He was born White of Welsh descent in American in 1850, I hardly see how he could be deemed a slave, considering his specific article mentions nothing of the sort.

James mcaninch 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The only argument I can see against the Tennessee Squire merger proposal is so much of it (the people) is unsourced. I think that article could easily be covered in a sentence here and Tennessee Squire left as a redirect. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem # 1

I was going to throw a large effort into this article, and realized I was becoming confused quite early. That's because... is this article on the product, the company, the brand, or what? The confusion can be summed up in the lead sentence "Jack Daniel's is a brand of Tennessee whiskey (not to be confused with bourbon) known for its square bottles and black label; they also produce a cheaper "green label," and the premium Gentleman Jack and Single Barrel varieties. " Who is the "they"? Jack Daniel's is a company, it's also a brand, and there is also the popular whiskey called Jack Daniel's. To put my issue into some perspective, we have articles for both Coca Cola and The Coca-Cola Company because they are obviously two different things. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a better comparison would be the article Heaven Hill and Evan Williams (whiskey). Heaven Hill is the distillery, has an article, Evan Williams is a famous brand/bottle made by Heaven Hill, has a seperate article. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...this is confusingly written. It should perhaps be something like "Jack Daniel's is a brand of whiskey produced by..." since the company and the brand are synonymous, and probably don't need separate articles, unlike the Coca Cola example, where one is clearly a company making many products, and the other is a drink. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fritz here. Not that confusing really, but I'm a bit "familiar" with the product :-). I think the cleanup that you're envisioning will take care of the problem, (not my drinking problem, the article problem, let me clarify). I also don't see a need for two articles Jack Daniel's (product) and Jack Daniel's (company). Incidentally, the article Jack Daniel, about the founder, could also use some fresh eyes/cleanup. Keeper ǀ 76 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and am not advocating splitting this into two articles, although it should be explicit as to what the topic of this article is. The fact is, the "brand" Jack Daniel's doesn't make the other brands (Gentlemen Jack, Jack Daniels Single Barrell, etc), but rather Jack Daniels Distillery makes them. Should this article be "on" the specific Jack Daniels brand, i.e. the black square bottle we all know and love, or should it technically be on the collective company of jack daniels, with an explicit reference in the lead that the notability is almost entirely from the popularity of the product "Jack Daniels"? I mean... right now we have coordinates and a business profile, but the lead says the article is about the specific brand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The article itself has to be about the drink/brand and tangentially to any related elements, which includes the company and related drinks. Coverage of the other drinks need not be extensive, but they can be mentioned as being related. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the other issue is that the Jack Daniel's brand actually has expanded a good deal outside of the iconic black bottle Jack. Might be unfamiliar to Fritz over the pond, but they are integrated with many American restaurants (TGIFridays, for one), using their sauces and other things. They also make cookbooks and other popular malt beverages that specifically aren't whiskey. I think maybe their should be article specifically about the famous Jack Daniels Tenessee Whiskey... if I'm not mistaken its the 1st or 2nd most individually drank liquor in the U.S. (will look for this when researching).
I'd dispute that the brand has any identity outside of the whiskey. The TGI Friday's JD items on the menu are just items where JD whiskey is in the sauce. Tempshill (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
An article about the entire Jack Daniels brand will need to go into more detail about the evolution of the company and their integration into pop culture America with other products, while I'm starting to think their could/should be a separate article on the specific iconic Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. Maybe I'll post a Q about this in the Food and Bev wiki project to get more opinions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I have to look into this more, as Brown-Forman Corporation is actually the company that owns/distributes the Jack Daniels brand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

I think defining a structure for the article early on will give a skeleton to work with. After the lead (which should probably be rewritten at the end), I was wondering about this sort of structure (Titles are just placeholders)

  • Products and production
    • A section on the different type of drink, and the associated products. Also, where possible, details on how they are made. Lots of promotional material to source the manufacture of JD whiskey! Illustrated subsection on the application of the brand to various products, in a table, like Coca Cola perhaps??
  • History
    • Founding/Early - some section on how it all got started, who was Jack Daniels, etc. Time period should probably end with Jack Daniels' death
    • Move into the modern era (or words to that effect) - Changes in the company, changes to the formula, etc.
    • Expansion of brand - move into other markets such as the sauces, and the stuff we Brits dont get to see!
  • Advertising/Promotion/Sales
    • Pretty self-explanatory, but if it is a brand, this must have been established somehow - talk about differences in international application of the brand here
  • Criticism
    • Alcohol is often subject to controversy - This was my first hit, albeit merely a pointer, but I'm sure there's enough for a meaty section

Just a thought! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and makes sense. I was going to go with history first, but products actually works better as it explains the topic and what the article is about. There will definitely be sources for a criticism section... JD has been criticized for recipe changes, lowering proof to 80 even just recently. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've been source hunting, and have found a few articles in Google Scholar that might be of interest - I'm probably being presumptuous, but I'm going to guess that you don't have access to these journals like I do. If you have e-mail enabled, I could send them to you. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't currently have access to google scholar, but I would appreciate you emailing me the articles. Make sure to make a note on my talk that you've done so, I rarely remember to check my wiki email. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Can't make attachments in the wiki, so I'd need you to ping me a reply to give me the address Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, will do. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee Squires

I happen to be one. Does anybody know how many Squires are out there? Demf (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On that topic, are there restrictions to who one can recommend to be a Squire? e.g. regarding citizens of other countries, does being an honorary citizen of Moore County and owning a plot of land in the distillery grant any legal right to settle in the US should they desire?--86.8.253.190 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Marketing

Shame there is nothing on their distinctive (and pervasive) marketing style. Reminds me of the J.Peterman catalogue.

Surely some marketing students have studied this?84.13.197.82 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee whiskey vs. Bourbon whiskey

From Jack Daniel's website:

Is Jack Daniel's a bourbon?

Jack Daniel's is not a bourbon - it's a Tennessee Whiskey. Jack Daniel's is dripped slowly - drop-by-drop - through ten feet of firmly packed charcoal (made from hard sugar maple) before going into new charred oak barrels for aging. This special process gives Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey its rare smoothness. It's this extra step - charcoal mellowing – that makes Jack Daniel's a Tennessee Whiskey.

http://www.jackdaniels.com/faq.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.167.198 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The company is not a reliable source of information on this subject. They have chosen to try to create a more distinctive brand identity by not calling their product a bourbon, but that doesn't mean that the product isn't a bourbon. In fact, under NAFTA Annex 313, “Tennessee whiskey” is defined as a straight bourbon. The company is not required to call it bourbon, but it conforms to the code of federal regulations that establishes the legal definition of bourbon. It is simply a bourbon made in Tennessee (that isn't called a bourbon by its manufacturer). See also, for example, the Cowdery Myths article, the Cowdery article on Tennessee Whiskey Versus Bourbon Whiskey, and the Bourbon Observer article on Filtration and the Lincoln County Process. Incidentally, charcoal filtering doesn't affect whether a product can be called a bourbon or not – lots of bourbon is charcoal filtered. For example, Ezra Brooks Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey is charcoal filtered. The defining regulations seem to be entirely silent on the subject of charcoal filtering. –BarrelProof (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tennessee whiskey is not bourbon whiskey, as defined by Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 5, Section 5.22." How so? The page cited does not provide any distinction. I suggest removing the entire paragraph. Spetnik (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph. It was clearly an untrue statement and not supported by the referenced U.S. law, which does not contain the phrase "Tennessee whiskey" at all. It also contradicted the NAFTA definition (and Canadian law). Removing the paragraph would also be OK with me. I'm sure it's an issue that will keep popping up over and over again, as long as the company keeps up its marketing tactic of denying that the product is a bourbon (and the legal definition doesn't change). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proofing formula

Previous wording was incorrect: "Additionally, Jack Daniel's was affected by the passage of legislation[where?] that changed the proofing formula of all alcoholic beverages from the United Kingdom's method to the United States' method, making all other methods obsolete as of January 1, 2005."

Jack Daniels, like all liquor sold in the USA, previously was labeled in US proof, not UK proof. US proof was simply double the percentage alcohol by volume (ABV) - i.e., 100 proof = 50% ABV.

Under the British formula, "proof spirit" contains at least 57.15% ABV - i.e., 100 UK proof = 57.14% ABV = 114.28% US proof.

Following that, 50% ABV = 100 US proof = 87.5 UK proof; 45% ABV = 90 US proof = 78.75 UK proof; 43% ABV = 86 US proof = 75.25 UK proof; 40% ABV = 80 US proof = 70 UK proof.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.12.99 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbecue sauce

Jack Daniel's makes barbecue sauce too. I have a bottle of it at my house, and it is seen as the BBQ sauce on some TGI Friday's menu items. Should I include the BBQ Sauce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atum World (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Daniel's doesn't make BBQ sauce, nor any of the other non-whiskey products that bear the Jack Daniel's name. They simply license the name to other companies. Some of those products contain Jack Daniel's whiskey as an ingredient while some do not, but Jack Daniel's doesn't actually make any of them. They make the whiskey, that's all. Cowdery (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

According to one blogger?

"As of November, 2007, one blogger was claiming that it was the best-selling whiskey in the world.[1]"

That one blogger doesn't really cite anything, surely there has to be a better source for this claim, if true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.55.5 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone just put that phrasing into the article a couple of days ago. Cowdery is not your average blogger. (See his profile at the referenced site, he has written at least one book, publishes a newslettter, etc.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing about sales figures and sales rankings is that there is no central, universally-accepted clearinghouse for this sort of information. It generally is not reported. I know some entity, in 2007, declared JD the world's #1 whiskey brand, surpassing Johnnie Walker, which had been number one. I don't recall which entity it was. Guess I'm a bad journalist for not reporting that. So, yes, I'm a pretty credible source, but I didn't declare JD #1, someone else did, and I don't remember who it was.Cowdery (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Products

Why isn't there a section on the products they make.--Dcheagle 02:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

80 proof is not just a 2004 invention

That, however, is what the article suggests. That's nonsense. Ask a Canadian! In Canada, even back in 1972, you couldn't buy anything but the 80-proof version. In case of doubt, I could even proof [sic] the fact to you. -andy 77.190.21.70 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Best selling whiskey"

Jack Daniel's is the best selling whiskey if we ignore all whiskies. But to have this claim is misleading. "Whiskey" is simply whisky that comes from the USA or Ireland (sometimes Canada). See here: [1], an Indian brand is the best selling whisky if you class it as a whisky, otherwise it's Johnnie Walker.Farrtj (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the intent of the article in The Atlantic was to consider only American and Irish whiskies. Also, in 2007, the well-known whisky author Chuck Cowdery specifically said that Jack Daniel's was out-selling Johnny Walker (see his article "Jack Daniel's Is the Best-Selling Whiskey in the World"). I wonder whether the answer depends on the measurement method (dollars versus litres versus number of bottles, etc.), and whether the measurements are fully precise (since companies may not publicly release sales statistics for specific brands) – and also whether the market has shifted over time. The Indian brands may not be considered whisky by many people, since they fit the traditional definition of rum more closely than of whisky (i.e. made primarily from molasses or sugar cane rather than from a grain mash). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: The topic is also discussed in the above section "According to one blogger?" I think he is correct that "there is no central, universally-accepted clearinghouse for this sort of information". Different sources may have different market size estimates. Anyhow, for Wikipedia purposes, it seems adequate to say that it is among the top selling brands world-wide, or that it is the top selling American brand. Both of those seem verifiable. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That it is "the highest selling American whiskey in the world" is beyond dispute, as it is easily ahead of its nearest competitor Jim Beam. So I am happy with how it is phrased. Farrtj (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

that indian whisky is made from molasses and wouldnt generally be considered a whisky by western standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Oldest registered distillery"

Reference #6 on Article page is incorrect. Says Jack Daniel's is the oldest registered distillery in the US. Lairds and Co. is the oldest distillery in the Us with license #1. --21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Charlesemorganiv (talk)

Link not working

--93.39.51.102 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. I have added a "tag" to the article to point out the problem. Hopefully someone can find a working link for that material. (Alternatively, the link should eventually be deleted.)

—BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My recent change to the Jack Daniel's#Lowering to 80 proof

I needed to add that in there because the Advertising Age report does not substantiate any possible causes in the change to sales, yet the statement seems to make such a claim. Perhaps someone else can think of a more concise way to phrase my stipulation.
Please, don't be silly and claim that it was “original research” or even “personal insight”, though it rather was. It is simply a logical analysis of the previous statement, though I admit that my inclusion of ‘decreased satiation’ was achieved through inductive reasoning.
I don't think that the information should be removed, nor did I want to simply tag it.
I suppose the question becomes this: What references to our information benefit from the change, and how is it better than it was prior to that change?
— JamesEG (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I see two problems with that edit: 1) It is commentary about what our sources do not say, rather than a report of what our sources say – putting forth a new theory that is, indeed, "original research" or even "personal insight". 2) I'll wager that the average reader would not understand what it says, as it is not well written. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was too presumptuous. The report didn't go so far as I still think the tone of the page does, so I changed the ancillary to be a much blander fact. I don't think the problem was that it wasn't “well written”, if I may say so, but I myself also didn't like the terseness of it.
To summarize, I'm not sure how to neutralize what I see as an affirmative spin, so rather I try to negate it. I may be inferring more that most readers would, but it's there.
— JamesEG (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Upload of a new image

Production Process

I've made an image about the production process. The image is based on the episode of National Geographic Channel's Ultimate Factories dedicated to the Jack Daniel's. --Giadsss (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That figure contains several errors, misspellings, unsourced factual assertions, and non-neutral phrasings. I'm not particularly fond of it. Practically all of the figure is also generic to the production of any Tennessee whiskey (or bourbon or whiskey in general). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Move request notification for Tennessee Whiskey (song)

Move request at talk:Tennessee Whiskey (song) -> Tennessee Whiskey. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That was rapidly withdrawn after a WP:SNOWball of opposition. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jack Daniel's. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Master Distillers

This section says there are 7 as of 2008, but only lists 6 names. It also says Bedford was in the position 20 years (had to be 1988-2008) but that overlaps with Bobo's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.112.128.15 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Jack Daniel or Lem Motlow seem likely to be the unmentioned master distiller. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth date...

The article states that "...the 1850 birth date seems impossible since his mother died in 1847". Does anyone else think this sentence is completely ridiculous? If his mother died in 1847 then it is impossible that he was born in 1850, it doesn't just seem impossible! Thoughts? FillsHerTease (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Daniel's. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jack Daniel's. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Daniel's. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

No mention of this in the article. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/dining/jack-daniels-whiskey-slave-nearest-green.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.26.101.23 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Daniel%27s/Archive_1&oldid=1142351163"