Talk:Malt liquor

non sequitur

"This gives a boost to the final alcohol concentration without creating a heavier or sweeter taste, thus they are not very bitter."

From what I can find online, Malt Liquors are sweeter due to the added sugars, corn etc... and also, how would it NOT being sweeter (as the article claims) infer that they are thus not very bitter? 92.30.232.122 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

The version of the Malt Liquor article present on 3/14/2005 has this statement:

"In some areas of the western United States, beers that are too strong to legally be beer are confusingly called "ale." "

Could you maybe be more specific about where in the Western US Ale is used to mean a malt liquor type beverage?

In Oregon and Washington there are micro/craft brews called Ales but they are a completely different category from malt liquor.

Franziskaner is one example of a quality beer that is more-or-less expensive and also self-labeled as a malt liquor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.126.45 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The section on History contains a reference to, "A patent issued by the Canadian government on July 6, 1842." There was no Canadian government in 1842. At that time, Canada consisted of several different separately governed provinces. They did not come together under a common government until 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:2435:4227:FCBA:1024 (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Barley wine?

I suspect that in the UK, "barley wine" is a substantially more upmarket product than "super lager." A Briton could perhaps elucidate. Barley wines are strong beers, but none of the ones I have heard of, either in the UK or the USA, are lagers. I still have a bottle of Thomas Hardy 1995 around here somewhere. It's not a beer that would appeal to "lager louts," I suspect.

Yes this is all wrong. Barley wine is always an ale, never a lager and is an expensive unusual product, I think I hadnt really picked up on this when I skimmed the article before because of the various references to ale, but these are all confusing names not about the styles. There are "super lagers" in the UK too (perhaps worth having a redirect from super lager, things like Special Brew, as drunk by the homeless ("Street drinkers" as they are known by the beer companies who target them apparently). Justinc 09:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading an anecdote about how some Michelob lager beer had to be called ale in Arizona and Nevada for legal purposes. I do not have easy access to the Arizona or Nevada alcoholic beverage regulations. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Study?

Can anyone provide a link to either the institution or study that is mentioned in the article - that Malt Liquor is the alcohol of choice to the homeless and unemployed?

I did not add the information to the article but a little Google (Scholar) searching revealed the source for the information: "(Malt liquor beer) drinkers were more likely to be homeless, to receive public assistance for housing, and to be unemployed." From: Characteristics of malt liquor beer drinkers in a low-income, racial minority community sample --Lavishluau 08:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please help corroborate, what a "forty" is

A user is insisting that a forty refers to a 40 oz bottle of regular liquor such as vodka, not malt liquor. I've reverted once and I'm not going to screw around fighting someone over this. Anyway, in my opinion this sentence in now incorrect and someone else should change it back "A forty ounce ... almost always refers to 40 oz. of liquor. Often, these bottles are simply called 40's. " ike9898 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From The Rap Dictionary 40 noun 1. A 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor. "Blushin in this 40-ounce , letting the ink from my pen bleed.."[The Game - Dreams(2004)] ike9898 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Florida

40oz malt liquors are not available in florida and i think should be mentioned in this article. if i can find official legislation about this, i'll post it. the highest is 32oz. 68.35.201.102 04:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples

I think the examples section is misnamed. Will try to think of better name. ReverendG 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think overall the article is in need of a general cleanup and reorganization. --Brownings 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Slang term

Urban Dictionary is not a valid source for WP. Unless you have a valid source for the term, stop reverting. OscarTheCat3 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Where else can you find the definitions of newly developed terminology than a site such as Urban Dictionary, which allows users to approve/disapprove of a definition for a given term? Just my two cents, open to feedback. Iketron3000 10:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is J. Cup

The last sentence reads "Malt liquor causes J. Cup to vomit profusely" Is J. Cup someone notable (and if so why is there no Wikipedia article?) or has someone put this in to embarass an acquaintance? Hypnopomp 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

exact alcohol content limit

"a type of beer that has a high alcohol content" What is "high alcohol content" precisely? Popular belief says that US beer is much weaker then European, so is ie. Amsterdam Navigator (11% alc vol) considered malt liquor or is it still a beer in light of US law? Please give figures instead of "high". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.94.230 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Malt liquor in Dickens

I came across the term in a Dickens novel this weekend: "I never knew her do it when company was present, at which time you may freely trust her with wines, spirits, or malt liquors." (from Bleak House, Ch. 9)

Is Dickens referring to the same stuff we are? If so, this article--which implies the term and the beverage are of 20th century American origin--is inaccurate.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what Dickens is referring to, but I think it's malt liquor as in malt whiskey and such. At one time, I'm guessing from 1600s through the 1800s, malt liquor was used as a general category to describe distilled liquors with a grain base such as whiskey's barley. Now how exactly the malt liquor name got transferred to the beverage we all know today, I haven't a clue. But as the beer-ish malt liquor began to take hold in the public mind, you can imagine that makers of more upscale and refined booze such as whiskey wanted to quickly distance themselves from the "malt liquor" name. Granted, the malt liquor beer was a lot higher on the social ladder than the malt liquor we know today, but still, the whiskey guys and others wanted nothing to do with the beer stuff.

Check out this article, it may be able to answer your deeper questions about the old school malt liquor, if you have any. Water of Life. --Brownings (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

After poking fun at me for a typo in my edit summary, User:Brownings reverted my removal of this difficult-to-verify and highly general statement: "Country Club is now owned by Pabst and is still sold today, though its sales were eclipsed years ago by almost every malt liquor on the market." He also added a source--of sorts: Gary Galeke, Brand Historian, Pabst Brewing Company. Telephone. October 1, 2006. I'm not sure telephone interviews with alleged experts are considerable reliable sources, by Wikipedia's definition--and they are certainly not verifiable. I'll leave it a lone for a short while, but I'm also going to ask the folks on the Reliable source noticeboard for their input.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement is general, mainly because a numbers game of yearly sales is pointless for an article such as this. However, if you really want annual numbers and a more specific statements then I'd be more than happy to waste my Holiday pleasing you. If Gary Galeke isn't a reliable source, then I'm not sure what is. Being the historian for Pabst, who owns most of the big name malt liquors, he has insight to not only the history of the brands, but the current sales for each. Country Club was the first big malt liquor, and if you depute that fact, then perhaps you should check out this cool new tool on the Internet called The Google. As for current sales, Country Club is sold only in one state, Texas, and through a single distributer, GLI. After talking with reps of GLI earlier this year, they say that not only is store demand down for Country Club, but the production schedule they receive from Pabst as moved Country Club from a bi-weekly delivery from the brewery, to a every other month schedule. As for your validity of telephone interviews, then what do you suggest references on Wiki be? Should I contact Mr. Galeke and have him write the information on lamb's skin, sign it in blood, then mail it via Certified Mail to the Wikipedia main offices? If telephone interviews are valid in MLA Citation, then I'm sure it's more than valid enough for here in Wiki-land. I'm not sure which part of this section you're so bent outta shape about, but as you can see I've got a ton of info and I'm more than willing and ready for the edit war you're threatening. --Brownings (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For a productive editor with ~2000 edits, you exhibit a curious lack of regard of Wikipedia:Verifiability and an amusingly belligerent tone to boot. The expertise of the gentleman to whom you spoke becomes sadly irrelevant if his statements cannot be independently verified. You're right that that sentence was far from the only problem with this article--it's merely the one that stood out the most on first inspection. I'll happily take a machete to other unsourced and odd-sounding claims. Your original research is interesting, but it's not the way we do things here. A blog or a freelance article would be a better outlet for such information and interviews, not Wikipedia.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I should step back here and take a breather. Obviously I'm taking this edit on a personal level. I know I shouldn't, but I am, and for that I apologize. It is just tough seeing work you've done and time spent zapped while violations of a much more hideous nature (plagiarism for example go ignored elsewhere). You are 110% correct on my borderline regard of the Verifiability and Original Research. At times in these niche topics, such as malt liquor or really anything to do with beer or wine, finding hard copy books or on-line articles that will serve as a reference is impossible. Sure there is some stuff here and there, but it usually falls into one of two categories: swill of the masses or the beer elite. For topics such as the 2008 Presidential Race or the American Civil War, there is a ton of information out there, with everyone and their brother publishing. For particulars concerning beer though, the pool is almost non-existent, instead relying on a group of old timers that are all to eager to pass on information, but couldn't compose an email or publish an article in the newspaper to save their life. Although bending some of the minor rules of Wikipedia, I think it's more important that the information get out there, even if Wikipedia needs to be it's collective digital starting point. Oh, and just so you know, my Summary wasn't a jab at you, I actually copied and edited your summary to create mine, thus a spelling error that neither I or Firefox caught. --Brownings (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries; lord knows I've lost my cool during many a talk page debate in the past. I actually think you're an awesome editor, and the project needs people like you, who are motivated to research and write about obscure topics and less of those who spend a great deal of time fussing about the rules and wikipolitics, while contributing no content. You say, "although bending some of the minor rules of Wikipedia, I think it's more important that the information get out there...." In a sense, you're right; that statement is vaguely suggestive of the Ignore all rules philosophy. You're making the encyclopedia better, not worse, by digging up historical facts about beer brands. The problem is WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research are not minor rules, but fundamental and inflexible principles. If someone sees an improper or missing citation and calls you on it--no matter how interesting or useful the information might be--V and "No original research" will win every time. So my advice is thus: cite your facts whenever you can (using third-party, verifiable sources), but when you cannot, be prepared for people to question and remove the information you wrote. There's got to be a few books or magazine articles out there about the history of beer in America. I have no doubt that you have the energy to find them. And maybe, with all the knowledgeable contacts you have, you should write a book of your own; I would read it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cozies section

Someone wrote a fairly offensive comment about "Negro's" (sic) in this section. I tried to edit it out but since I am a wikipedia neophyte I couldn't figure out how to delete it (it appears hidden in the main text body). 71.127.189.76 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all out now. Take a look, if what you was is still there, let us know and we'll kill it. Vandalism seems to have picked up on this article as of late. I'll keep a watch and try to catch what I can. --Brownings (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Consumption of Malt Liquor by Blacks

The article says that 78% consumption of malt liquor is by Blacks but cites a (questionable) article that clearly states the percentage at 28. I edited it, but someone changed it back. 68.73.94.52 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Xavier

Hmmm, it would seem you're right. Perhaps the percentage got changed in some vandalism at some point and no one caught it. Anyway, here is the ref's section that applies:

"In the United States, malt-liquor drinking has been most often associated with the African-American community. Black consumption of all malt-liquor brands in this country is estimated at 28 percent, but it is considerably higher for such high-profile malts as Olde English 800 and St. Ides. A marketing brochure for Olde English once noted that the product is "brewed for relatively high-alcohol content (important to the ethnic market!)." And spokespersons for St. Ides ads are almost exclusively African-American rap artists."

How legit is the study, who knows. It seems from an actual newspaper though (St Louis Post-Dispatch), at least originally. --Brownings (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed the statement "a disproportionate amount of African Americans consume malt liquor" to "malt liquor is disproportionately consumed by African Americans" because the former statement was racist. 23:03 (EST), 23 January 2009

Took it out because the source is no longer valid, and further, after hunting for it could not find it, as such as per verifiability rules, was deleted talk) 2309, 7 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? I remember, particularly in the 80s and 90s there was a fair amount of criticism of malt liquor as being destructive to the black community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditions

I have removed the traditions section. It does not contain reliable sources for the information it contains and is therefore not verifiable. In fact most of this article is not reliably sourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it relies on FACTS not conjecture. If a thing can be proved, it can be added; otherwise, it's not a candidate for inclusion in any source of accurate knowledge. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How strong is regular US beer?

If 5% is considered 'strong', what's the strength of ordinary US beer? In Australia, the lowest alcohol beer is about 2.2% and you can buy 14% beer at some speciality breweries, so 5% isn't considered very strong. 124.149.65.119 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of aless sold in the USA are over 5% alcohol. Examples of flagship ales: 6% Dogfish 60 Minute https://www.dogfish.com/brewery/beer/60-minute-ipa 6.8% Rogue Dead Guy https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/132/355/ 5.6% Sierra Nevada Pale https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/140/276/ 5.2% New Belgium Fat Tire https://www.newbelgium.com/beer/fat-tire/ 5.9% Harpoon IPA https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/98/311/ Anchor Steam is 4.9%, and is the only one I looked up under 5%. There are obviously examples of ales under 5% in the USA, but it is not the norm. I am not aware of any state requiring Sierra Nevada, New Belgium, Harpoon, etc to label their products "Malt Liquor", so the article appears to be inaccurate.12.168.141.5 (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

really, given a complete lack of sources the whole distinction based on "high" ABV seems to be simply wrong. Maybe historically that's the origin of the term? If some state somewhere has this law the article should be specific because it is certainly not the case in most states. 2600:1702:3B50:4680:B1CB:2157:4384:EBBF (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malt liquor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822192422/http://beeradvocate.com/articles/288 to http://beeradvocate.com/articles/288

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference to "5 cocktails"

In the second paragraph of the "Forty-Ounce" section, a forty ounce is described as having approximately 5 cocktails worth of alcohol, but this statement is problematic. First, there is no standard for how much alcohol is in a cocktail. Cocktails may contain a range of alcohol servings, from 1, 1.3, 1.5, all the way past 3 servings. Second, when taking into consideration that most IBA cocktails will have at least 1.3 to 1.5 servings of alcohol, the statement is just factually wrong; most forty ounces will have about 4 to 5 servings of alcohol, whereas 5 cocktails will be anywhere from 6.5 and up. Given that malt liquor is generally 5% or higher, and is a type of beer, it would make more sense to describe the total amount of alcohol as having more than 3 standard beers, since 3 standard servings of beers (12 oz at 5% abv) would be 36 oz. Alternatively, it could be shown how many servings a particular brand has, like mickey's (5.6% abv) and Steel Reserve (8.1% abv), so as to show the range of possible servings a forty ounce can have. Compared to the 4.5 servings of alcohol in a 40oz bottle of Mickey's and 6.5 servings of alcohol in a 40oz bottle of Steel Reserve, 5 cocktails with 1.3 servings of alcohol (like a Gin and Tonic) would be 6.5 servings, 5 cocktails with 1.5 servings of alcohol (like a Sazerac) would be 7.5 servings, and 5 cocktails containing 2 servings of alcohol (like a Martini) would be 10 servings of alcohol. Including a link to whatever article describes standard drinks would also be helpful, since we're describing the amount of alcohol servings a forty ounce contains.

The cited source isn't medical or scientific, rather related to business and social issues. So while the references it makes to the social issues regarding the 40 ounce bottle is valid, the number of servings of alcohol may be factually in correct. As such, it would be better, imo, to factually cite the stated alcohol content of a lower abv and a higher abv malt liquor 40 oz, describe the total servings of alcohol they contain using what the US defines as a standard drink, and then lead into the sociological notions. Frankly, I'm not even sure that paragraph is needed, but if it's to be kept, we need factual, scientific information. Metaleggman (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)