Talk:Pisco

Sources

I'm adding them.Wipsenade (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.Wipsenade (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Source abuse, misscitation and Peruvian POV-attack

User 131.104.45.46 is trying to change [1][2] lead reserve the label "pisco" for pisco from Peru while calling the Chilean product a "yellowish-to-amber colored brandy". 131.104.45.46 bases his Peruvian nationalist foreign policy aligned claims on a website apparently from the OEA that host a document about the FTA between Chile and United States in 2004. (source here) where it says "The United States shall recognize Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco), Pajarete, and Vino Asoleado, which is authorized in Chile to be produced only in Chile, as distinctive products of Chile. Accordingly, the United States shall not permit the sale of any product as Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco), Pajarete, or Vino Asoleado, unless it has been manufactured in Chile in accordance with the laws and regulations of Chile governing the manufacture of Pisco, Pajarete, and Vino Asoleado." This is source is: 1) not authoritative 2) says nothing about that Chilean Pisco is not just pisco. 131.104.45.46's source regarding that "pisco" is Peruvian is WorldReference. I let the observes to judge themselves the validity of these sources to maginalize "Chilean Pisco", but it should be known that Peru has tried to claim the exclusive right to the use of the Pisco label name as an appellation of origin, and it is in this context 131.104.45.46 edits have to be seen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.141.179 (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. I am trying to figure out whether the "Peru pusher(s)" here have some kind of valid point or are just promoting a nationalistic POV, and the answer is not really clear to me. I don't really understand why you say that the FTA is not an authoritative source. It seems to me that a law or treaty is much more authoritative than just about any other source, so an FTA is very authoritative. It is interesting to me that in [3], the EU seems to have endorsed the idea that "Pisco" (not prefixed by a geographic location adjective) is implied to be from Peru, and this is in a document that is newer than most of the other references. Additionally, I note that some of the other documents seem to explicitly allow the term "Chilean Pisco", but seem to be silent about whether "Chilean Pisco" can be labelled as just "Pisco" (without prefixing this term with a geographic location adjective). Of course, I am sure that the average person in Chile probably just says "pisco" rather than "Chilean pisco" when they discuss their domestically-produced liquor. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FTA's are politics and the parties involved have interests, this compromises their neutrality are thus not authoritative at least not in controversial topics. A Chile-EU or Peru-USA FTA can not decide what is worldwide to bee considered pisco, just what is defined so in their jurisdictions. FTA's can be used as sources but with caution! Barrel, you should be aware of that this is just one of many such controversies just like Bolivia tries get exclusive rights on diablada or Peru on ceviche. Lets make it clear for the nationalists pushers that they can have these points of view expressed here but not as absolute truths and not as the first defining sentence in the lead. 130.238.141.171 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Formulation

Sorry continuing with this stuff. In History it is quoted "Pisco has been produced in the Chilean cities of Santiago and La Serena since 1552". The cited text http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-23762005000200005&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es says that since that year there was produced "aguardiente de uva o Pisco". What looks like a contradiction, for although the whole article is about the later origins of the word for this grape brandy, in that part it has no prove of that early use of the word Pisco, just very good funding of the early production of aguardiente = brandy - which, for the purpose of booth that article and this one of wikipedia, ain't the same until proven so. So, I would propose to correct towards "Grape brandy has been produced in the Chilean cities of Santiago and La Serena since 1552". Leon-geyer (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a misunderstanding there. The cited article in question seems to suggest that pisco and aguardiente were the same until some of this aguardiente started to be called pisco in Peru and then the name was adopted in Chile also.. later on (20 century) pisco and grape aguadiente were truly separated by law. Chiton magnificus (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A little suggestion

The spanish Wikipedia has an article about the Chilean pisco and another about the Peruvian pisco.

Would be a good contribution to this article if somebody could translate both articles from the spanish Wiki. Wilhelm Wiesel (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)