Talk:Last Word (cocktail)

Source of alcohol

Green Chartreuse is 110 proof, while gin seldom exceeds 90 proof. Since they are used in equal parts, the Chartreuse is the primary-alcohol-by-volume. Strange, since Chartreuse is classified as a liqueur, but true. dclayh (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

History is incorrect and misleading in current phrasing re: Frank Fogarty

Fogarty is who introduced the drink to the Detroit Athletic Club in 1915 and they added it to their menu, according to David Wondrich. See revised edition of Imbibe! page 331.

Fogarty was on the Orpheum circuit so it's quite possible he had the drink made for him all over, but we don't find it in a book until Saucier 1951. It's unclear how Saucier found out about it.

MetaGrrrl (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks like conflicting sources, eventually we may need to incorporate 2 versions in the article after comparing sources. Is Wondrich's article online somewhere or could you provide a digital copy?--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I revised the paragraph now using the sources below, which comes close to Wondrichs version. I couldn't find the latter online though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The text needs to be changed that Fogarty "introduced" the cocktail in New York ("around here" means New York, where Ted Saucier worked as a PR person for the Waldorf Astoria. He did not invent the cocktail. I've put a link to the original recipe below, where you can read the text. Also see links to articles which make the case that the Last Word was on the Detroit Athletic Club menu from the time the new clubhouse opened.

There still might be an issue of conflicting sources. However I modified it now to the version inwhich Fogarty introduced it to NY 8presumably after learning about it in Chicago).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

further sources

• http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/drinks/news/a3439/harvey-wallbanger-last-word-and-sazerac-cocktails/
• http://mixology.eu/klassik/last-word-cocktail/
• https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2015/10/07/truly-the-last-word-on-the-last-word-the-cocktail-sensation-that-originated-at-the-detroit-athletic-club
• https://drinks.seriouseats.com/2012/12/cocktail-101-how-to-find-vintage-cocktail-books-best-old-drinks-recipes-ebay.html
• https://mixology.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ted-saucier-cocktailbuch.jpg
• https://www.google.de/books/edition/Vintage_Spirits_and_Forgotten_Cocktails/e6LQDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=ted+haigh+last+word&pg=PA93&printsec=frontcover
• https://www.google.de/books/edition/The_Oxford_Companion_to_Spirits_and_Cock/A4lNEAAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=fogarty+last+word&pg=PA414&printsec=frontcover
• https://eu.freep.com/story/entertainment/dining/sylvia-rector/2014/11/21/last-word-cocktail-born-detroit/70021018/
• https://www.metrotimes.com/food-drink/truly-the-last-word-on-the-last-word-the-cocktail-sensation-that-originated-at-the-detroit-athletic-club-2373615

Page name should be changed from "The Last Word" to "Last Word"

The name of the cocktail is "Last Word." Proof points are the original menu from the Detroit Athletic Club, which can be seen in the Metro Times article (see link in "further sources" - picture of menu is at the bottom of the article), as well as Ted Saucier's "Bottoms Up" recipe which lists the drink as "Last Word" (see picture of "Last Word" recipe in Serious Eats article in "further sources.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signofthefourwinds (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I moved the page now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

Should this article say that disambiguation is needed? There is a BBC Radio 4 programme called "Last Word" and we would not want people confusing this with the cocktail. Vorbee (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Detroit

I meant to add a comment in version history but got tricked by the interface, so i post the comment here. The addition looked rather (inappropriate) promotional to me, however if it was not it needs at least a proper source (like a book, newspaper or journal article or maybe a very well known/reputable cocktail blog) and the website of the Detroit bar in question cannot serve as such.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Kmhkmh the bar's website should not be used as a source for this. Spudlace (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes

Sorry, but i'm going to reset your changes again. I'd like to remind you, that you recently rewrote the article including deleting much of the original content and sources without discussing it, seeking consent or providing any reason for the deletions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Outside of reorganizing this article, fixing all the incomplete citations, rescuing the dead links, removing large portions of bad writing, redundant statements ("contains no ice and is served straight up"), false statements ("Since this dates the creation of the drink to the first years of the prohibition (1919-1933), it is usually considered a prohibition era drink"), weasel words ("A particularly well-known variation"), and removing the unnecessary blockquote, there are two differences between the revisions:

1. Removal of Frank Fogarty. "The first publication in which the Last Word appeared was Ted Saucier's 1951 cocktail book Bottoms Up!. In it, Saucier states that the cocktail was first served around 30 years earlier at the Detroit Athletic Club and later introduced in New York by Frank Fogarty." Of the three sources given for this statement, the only one that contains it is this one, which is a non-WP:RS WP:USERGENERATED blog and was removed. The entire biographical paragraph on Fogarty is unnecessary. The Reuters article says the drink is "attributed to Frank Fogarty," while the Town & Country article says Fogarty "discovered it" at the Detroit Athletic Club. I'd be happy to add that "vaudevillian Frank Fogarty introduced the drink to New York."

2. Removal of the Rachel Maddow anecdote as WP:POPCULTURE trivia. It doesn't really deepen the meaning or understanding of either Maddow or the drink, but if anyone feels strongly that the world needs to hear this, I can compromise. Rift (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Well there is nothing wrong with fixing dead links or overhauling the prose. Details regarding the latter might be in the eye of the beholder though. Which links exactly were dead?

The point that some of the description might be redundant is fair - however that redundancy also serves a purpose. It can make the content more accessible to readers not being particularly familiar with cocktails and cocktail related customs, they may for instance not know what "straight up" means.

The supposed "false statements" were actually sourced. I don't really want to argue about real or imagine "weasle words" and I don't mind them being changed provided they were not used by the referenced source in that way. This also goes for various assessments of the drink regarding its popularity, taste or categorization, where simply have to summarize the assessment in the sources. One problem here is that different sources state different potentially conflicting information and it might not always be obvious how to best summarize that. For instance while we (now) know that the cocktail already appeared in 1916 menu in the Detroit Athletic Club (and based on tha could overrule Saucier's dating with regard to the origin), we can't conclude from that the description "prohibition era drink" is false as the original spreading and popularity of the drink is still associated with the prohibition era.

With regard to Fogarty. First of all I don't quite agree that The Cocktail Chronicles cannot be used as a source at all, though it might be borderline. They are not a case of user generated content but self-published (Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable). One can argue that Paul Clarke (author of the cocktail chronicles) fits that description. Clarke aside Fogarty is also mentioned by Rathbun and Newmann (also can be found in additional sources currently not used in the article). Given that Fogarty is associated with the drink in various sources, he should be mentioned in the WP article as well. Since he should to be mentioned, I see no harm in providing a little background information on him rather than simply dropping his name. This also helps to avoid that readers might mistake him for a barkeeper or somebody working in a liquor related field.

After rereading the sources on Fogarty and the last word and looking at a few alternative ones (including the original entry in saucier's book), I've come to realize that exact connection of Fogarty to the drink may need some rewriting nevertheless. It seems earliest source (which/most all later sources seem to rely on) connecting Fogarty to the cocktail is Ted Saucier book and the terse description there may have been interpreted differently by different authors. One interpretation seems to be Fogarty learned about the drink in Detroit and brought it New York (since Saucier was working in NY) and the other that Fogarty possibly created the drink in Detroit and suggested it to the Detroit Athletic club (Fogarty is known to have performed in Detroit in 1915, a year before the drink appeared on the Athletic Club's menu). Frizell (Oxford Companion) and Ted Haigh support the latter interpretation, based on that the introduction to New York probably should be removed.

As far as the block quote is concerned, that seems a matter of taste to me. I see no issue with including a literal assessment from an expert/prominent barkeeper.

As far as the Maddow's part is concerned I see no problem with including that either. She/her show is well known enough that the appearance of the cocktail there might be consider noteworthy in the history of the cocktail.

Overall this isn't an overly long article that needs to pruned for having for readable scope. There is no need to condense it to the minimal amount information a cocktail article needs to offer.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is all good stuff. I'd still like to keep the revised version of the page as far as wording and structure are concerned, but with the above additions. I think something to the effect of "Saucier wrote that Fogarty introduced the drink, etc." would be good, since pinpointing the exact origin of any cocktail is a nearly impossible, even when otherwise reliable sources take a firm stand. Add bit of background on Fogarty, too. Should be able to bypass Clarke entirely by citing Saucier directly.

Maddow thing is fine. I'll see to making the revisions soon. Rift (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There is some issues with the exact sourcing now due to the reshuffling/rewriting.

That aside referencing Saucier directly is tricky as his terse description has lead to 2 different interpretations of it as tried to pointed it out above. One is that Fogarty brought the cocktail from Detroit to New York, the other that he invented it in Detroit. Among various newspaper articles, cocktail writer and historians you can find both versions and it isn't really up to us to decide which one is correct. So we either have to mention both, use "weasel words" like "associated/connected" is Fogarty (without giving any details) or simply quote what written in Saucier's book (which would be best with a block quote though)

The explanation for the drinks color is missing now.

As far as Clarke as a source is concerned. As I explained above he is viable source in this context, however his description isn't really adding anything, which isn't written in the other sources as well and for that reason he can be removed. I'm not sure why i originally added him as a source, probably just as an additional source being available online.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)