User talk:Whiskeylore

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

Whisky Bottle maker and Son

Hi. I made u a few pages-a User Page and now a Talk page. That way you have ur own space on Wikipedia as a creator & content editor.

Hey, I think there were two guys named Edmund Boiz, the dad had the middle initial of 'C', the son with the middle initial 'G'. The dad started the famous bottle I think.

What are your thoughts on this? Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambein (talk • contribs)

Whiskeylore (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks for that. Still getting my feet wet here.[reply]

I actually left the previous editor's "family" section in there, even though he don't have it cited. I've seen a William Booz from Bucks County and it is assumed he is his father, but I don't have any hard evidence - so that may be open to being changed if further facts are found. Edmund G. Booz' death certificate does not list his father or mother's name unfortunately, but it does say he was born in Bucks County. His kids names were Randal and Charley.

In the Philadelphia city directories, it looks like sometimes they get Edmund's name wrong between 1855 and 1860 - they list him as Edwin. Yet he is shown as working on Front Street and living on Brown Street - which Edmund did too. That would be a heck of a coincidence. It gets slightly confusing because the addresses are different - but in 1856, Philadelphia reworked their entire numbering system, so as far as I can tell from the old maps, the house and business are the same, even though they are different addresses between 1856-1857.

This is likely where the last person got the name William for his father: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/101803916/edmund-g.-booz

Both his kids apparently had "C" as their middle initial. All I can say is, this guy was pretty well hidden from history, so facts are slim.

MfD nomination of User:Whiskeylore

User:Whiskeylore, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Whiskeylore and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Whiskeylore during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chicken Cock Whiskey (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by BuySomeApples were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There's too much uncited information, plus it isn't clear if the modern brand is the same entity as the historic distillery.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chicken Cock Whiskey and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whiskeylore! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BuySomeApples,

I'm sorry to see the decision to reject this material so quickly. I am a whiskey history researcher who has written and produced six seasons of the Whiskey Lore podcast, dispelling myths and rumors in a poorly researched whiskey industry. In my time researching, I have found most authors treat whiskey history as "fun and entertaining" at the expense of scholarship. I am beginning to understand why I've been relying less and less on Wikipedia as a "trusted resource" in regards to whiskey history if these books of misinformation are required for articles to be published.

It is the inaccuracies in articles like Old Crow and Dr. James C. Crow that has me wanting to help clear things up with actual court documents and contemporary newspaper accounts that refute poor scholarship, rather than relying on books built on entertaining readers at the expense of facts. Since James A. Miller and Chicken Cock had as great an impact on the spreading of the word "bourbon" across this country in the 1850s like Dr. Crow and his Old Crow whiskey, and since there is a company that has come out and reintroduced the brand on the shelf (which I'm sure will raise questions and get Wikipedia searches when they see the 1856 date on the bottles), it feels like Wikipedia is missing an opportunity here to truly educate and be there for whiskey history fans.

And the reasons I am reading in your refusal are:

Not enough secondary sources.

What good are secondary sources if they are all inaccurate? Unfortunately, the first person to write in depth about Chicken Cock in 1882 was someone traveling to all the distilleries in an area of Kentucky, asking people that worked there to tell him the history. He missed a critical 20 years of history that makes this a legendary whiskey. Why would this writer go so wrong? I've toured over 250 distilleries between Kentucky, Tennessee, Scotland, and Ireland and wrote best selling books on both of those journeys. And I can tell you, tour guides and employees do not check their facts, they relate the fun stories they've heard (more lore) and usually there are contradictions in history from one distillery to the next. Turns out, this traveling writer took everyone's word for it. Yet what you're suggesting is that Wikipedia would rather trust this unreliable source because it is a published book, rather than courthouse records and contemporary newspaper accounts? I have to assume that most of the tour guides I hear give misinformation are likely getting it from searching Wikipedia. Is that what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish?

No in-depth sources.

There is not a single in-depth source about Dr. James C. Crow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Crow In fact, you only have one source on this page and it has elements that are not proven. I have several long written newspaper accounts and highly detailed title deeds proving statistics and dates that were incorrect in every secondary source I could find. Would you rather have the inaccurate secondary sources? If so, I need to delete my account right now and forget I ever thought of helping Wikipedia tighten up articles with facts. I held my nose and put a couple of book references in there because some elements wash - and I actually have more secondary sources than the Crow article. I'm not sure why this is a question, unless the balance of legal legitimate sources is too high vs speculative fanciful secondary sources.

Reliable.

I almost fell over when I saw this. So county courthouse records aren't reliable? Contemporary newspaper accounts aren't reliable? Could you explain this to me?

As for the "strictly independent" argument. Are you saying you want non-whiskey writers writing about whiskey? Could you clarify? I am not promoting my own books or podcast, although I'd be happy to reference those and get links on your site. I just didn't think that was appropriate.

As for the relationship to the modern brand, I'm happy to remove those references if that is a sticking point. But I would think most people finding this article would come to it because they bought the modern brand, saw the 1856 date on the bottle and would go to Wikipedia to learn more. The modern brand tells the history on their website, but it is full of that misinformation from the 1882 book. Should I contact them and have them update their history using my notes so as to make them a secondary reference?

If you want a shorter article that only has information that I have verified through legal and credible newspaper articles, I can do that. It is a brand that needs to be covered. I also have some photos of historic bottles from pre-Prohibition that I can add that will also validate the legacy of this brand.

I'm sorry if any frustration came through this message, but this article took a lot of time and diligent research with the idea of helping strengthen Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted whiskey history resource built on scholarship, rather than entertainment. I hope you can appreciate the passion that I bring to truth in the whiskey space.

Cheers,

Drew Whiskeylore (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Cock Whiskey

Hi Whiskeylore, I'm sorry I never saw the above talk page message because there wasn't a ping!

I saw the page in AfC again and I honestly think the historic brand is notable while the modern "rediscovery" of the brand by Grain & Barrel isn't (yet). The modern brand might become notable once independent reliable sources are published about it, but it doesn't inherit notability through the name if that makes sense.

Are you OK with me removing the Grain & Barrel branded stuff, and publishing the historic info? BuySomeApples (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the follow up. I agree, the historical aspect is the most reason this needs to be posted. It is a story that has been wrong for too long and Wikipedia has the opportunity to get it right and to help future researchers get on the right path to telling bourbon history.

I would only suggest that a new company coming in and reintroducing a trademark, while paying homage to the old brand by copying its bottle design and logo is of some historical significance. The bottles on the market will raise questions, especially since they are similar to the old bottles. So, I'd suggest leaving in the intro mention of Grain & Barrel, but the stuff later in the article about them could be removed. Would that work?

If not, I'm fine with it going up without any Grain & Barrel reference.

Thanks for your attention to it.

Drew 2600:6C5E:11F0:8DB0:EDDB:D041:8894:E22F (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was Whiskeylore by the way (wasn't logged in) Whiskeylore (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds awesome! If you can find a reliable news source, we can mention it somewhere in there. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]