Talk:Pisco

message: I've made a modest attempt at some tidying. Mostly spelling correction, punctuation of run-on sentences, and removing random capitalisation (all presumably residual traces of translation?), but have a few questions about confusing points:
* The article states both that the name is derived from a vessel called a pisko, and from sailors referring to the port of Pisco. Which? Or, if we aren't sure, both theories should be explained together instead of each being asserted as true in separate sections.
* The reference to chicha is confusing. Chicha is apparently a non-distilled maize beer, so clearly pisco is not made in a very similar way at all. Is it being suggested that the initial fermentation is done in a similar way? If so, fermentation is a natural process which is pretty similar the world around, so exactly which aspects of chicha fermentation were copied for pisco?
* 'it is reported the Spanish called it "fire-wine".' Clearly the Spanish would have called it something in Spanish, not English. The sentence should read something like 'it is reported the Spanish called it vino del fuego (Spanish for "fire-wine"', however I don't know what the actual phrase was. Also, we try to avoid unconfirmable phrases like "it is reported". Who claims this? When?
* 'pisco ... drunk mostly by sailors, as crew usually drank whisky...' This is self contradictory. What is meant? Perhaps that the ship's officers usually drank whisky?
* 'this desert area was used to produce a pisco adapting the Peruvian techniques'. Huh? They grew grapes in a desert in the 1880s? How? If that is what is meant, it is remarkable and deserves more than just this passing reference.
* "Green Must, ... must be distilled before the fermentation process has transformed sugars into alcohol." Huh? If this is the case, the resulting material will be nonalcoholic. It will also contain no sugar, as sugar doesn't distill over. In fact, it will be basically just water, with a faint hint of grape aroma. Surely that can't be what is meant.
-- Securiger 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions 

message: I have never been able to find Pisco in the United States, although I have only looked in 3 states (Michigan, Kentucky, and Oklahoma).  I have only been introduced to it from friends bringing it from Chile... Does anyone know of any relevant import/export regulations at play here, and could write a section about this, or have I just had bad luck? Kinser 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Import regulations for Chilean Pisco was sealed in the CHILE-USA TLC starting 2004. Anyway it was also imported before. Check this store, you get both Chilean and Peruvian Pisco, though it's easier to obtain Chilean Pisco, due to the bigger production and export. --RapaNui 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I know of several liquor stores in Northern, Central, and Southern Texas that sell various brands of Pisco.  Most are Chilean, but I heard some of the Peruvian brands were affected by natural disaster. Megyn 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pisco in the United States 

message: Being aware that Pisco is the most widely consumed spirit in Chile, I am quite sure that it is not the case in the other 2 countries Peru and Bolivia, though I am aware that it is the most polemical and most present within media of Peru. Bolivia by the way does not produce Pisco, but they call it Singani. Will try to find some sources of production and consumption within those countries. Cheers--RapaNui 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pisco most widely consumed spirit in Peru ? 

message: The links on the bottom left indicate with the star nex to the Spanish version, that it is a featured article in Spanish, but when you click on the link, it doesn't appear to be a featured article at all, should that be changed? Xobxela 06:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why listed as featured article in Spanish? 

message: It is wrong to speak about the early days of Chile as Real Audiencia.
the Real Audiencia was indeed the adminstrative organ in Chile, but does not serves as a name for the territory.
should be called "Reyno de Chile", "Reino de Chile" (Kingdom of Chile), or the most exact denomination of "Capitanía General de Chile" (Captaincy General of Chile).
200.74.32.92 21:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about "Real Audiencia" 

message: I can't believe that this article has grown so big without any references whatsoever. The origins of Pisco are a very contentious issue between Peru and Chile. If no-one provides references to back claims toward one country or the other, then I will go through and delete all the biased information. Claiming that Pisco was named after the port city also does not hold water without some very reliable sources, since it is such a common Quechua word. --Ozhiker 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No References?!! 

message: The 'Peruvian Pisco' heading has repeatedly been changed to 'Original Pisco' I have reverted it because this is an extremely contentious issue between Peru and Chile, and since the article provides no cited references whatsoever about the origins of Pisco, it is not valid to claim that Peruvian Pisco is the 'Original'. Please add strong citations for such claims. --Ozhiker 12:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Pisco 

message: since ancient and emancipation times there has been a city in peru named "PISCO " where the production of the black and other kinds of grape have taken place,that is the primarly reason why peru is the rightful owner of the beverage named pisco,since that was the place where it was originaly made.
: Pisco is a port, and no Pisco was elaborated in ancient times there, but ICA, the region behind. Pisco was simply the main spanish port for exports of this spirit coming from every corner at the pacific coast. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pisco peruano 

message: There are two "pisco". One of then was from Ica (Viceroyalty of Peru) and other in La Serena (Kingdom of Chile) in 17th century. Ica and La Serena belongs to Viceroyalty of Peru in 17th century.
Please add chilean history version. --Achata (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 "pisco" 

message: I do not understand why somebody has divided early history of Pisco into "Chile" and "Peru", since the disputes of the two countries are being adressed under its own section. The history of pisco currently appears under the topic "Peru" rathan than under its own topic "history". I will change that, but somebody disagree let us discuss it here.Dentren | Talk 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the history of Pisco divided between in "Chile" and "Peru"?

message: Pisco Sour is probably the most significant use of Pisco outside of Chile and Peru. I will look for references and add "Pisco Sour".chavo (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the "Pisco Sour" not listed under the cocktails?

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

message: User 131.104.45.46 is trying to change  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,Oakes, P., Pisco Liquer Dispute between Chile and Peru (PISCO), American University.Defense of the Peruvian denomination of origin, Embassy of Peru (.pdf)Main Specifications of the Technical File for 'Pisco', European Commission document 2011/C 141/16, 12 May 2011. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Source abuse, misscitation and Peruvian POV-attack

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formulation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A little suggestion