Talk:Pisco sour

National Origin

It is clear from the info and sources in the body and on Spanish Wikipedia that the origin of this drink is disputed; as such it seems entirely inappropriate to conclusively attribute the drink to one country. I previously noted this in the lede before it was disruptively reverted by an unregistered user without a note other than 'fixed'. Due to this I'll be changing it back but welcome discussion here as to why we would not note this. -TheMiddleWest (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. I am the primary author and researcher of this article. According to a majority of the literature, the cocktail is of Peruvian origin. This is reflected in the article per WP:WEIGHT. The Chilean invention legend/tale/whatever is mentioned in the article because it is an interesting aspect of the cocktail. The controversy adds to its popularity. Regardless, the article also makes it clear that the cocktail is traditional in both Chile and Peru, each country having unique ways of preparing the drink (different even from the IBA recipe).

Do keep in mind that the cocktail is not the same thing as Pisco, the base drink, which does have a true commercial geographical indication dispute. Thanks for your concern and please let us know if you have any other questions. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Latin America?

I'd suggest here that Latin America is a questionable cultural/geographic reference. This is very evident here. The matter belongs to Peru and Chile as I understand from the article. It has very little more to do with neighbour countries than with anywhere the drink became popular, this internationally famous drink. Even if it had, the names of the countries might be mentioned instead of this rather precarious generalization, e.g. Argentina and Uruguay. As an attempt to illustrate the point, it is more or less as if a beverage issue between Finland and Estonia might be called a debated topic of the Eurasian culture, including Japan and Portugal in the category. Besides that, Latin America still is a precarious geographic reference since South America is a very diversified continent, e.g. Japanese immigrants, German immigrants, Chinese immigrants, North American, sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern (perhaps culturally also a generalization) immigrants and native Americans, i.e. Andean natives, Patagonian, Amazonian natives, Aztec, none have 'Latin' origins, whatever this may mean. Even people from Spain and Portugal are ultimately not Latin, since most of them have Germanic origin and were culturally colonized by the Roman Empire and that is why they speak modern vernacular Latin. They are originally Iberic, Celtic and Germanic mostly. Brazil and Argentina I'd say are especially not liable to be included in such concept, in their diverse European immigration based population. Or Andean countries either. I strongly understand that the term Latin America has no objective basis so as to be used in an encyclopedic article. I understand there is cultural interchange especially between Spanish speaking countries, roughly half the continent, but this is one specific layer of the matter, not the whole and it is mostly via modern mass culture, which would include the USA/Europe just as much as neighbours. Not what would justify a categorization. It sounds naively and mistakingly eurocentric. On top of all and corroborating the point, the drink is considered to be created either by an American or an English individual or both, this case proving a good example of the continent's cultural diversity and cosmopolitan nature.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HM7Me (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 

First Unaffiliated Registrant

@MarshalN20 According to a 2009 article by Guillermo Toro-Lira (uploaded to his homepage), the same researcher that you cited for your Morris' Bar contentions, John Tinker Glidden was "possibly the first registrant not associated with the bar." Given the scan of an advertisement for the register next to the discussion of Glidden, I'm curious as to why you attach no significance to the argument. I'm not beholden to that particular addition, given assessments of the man---only curious as to your rationale. I can mention the first registrant in the caption to the scan, if that suits your purposes. Bustamove1 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What argument are you talking about? There is no argument. The question here is: why is "John Tinker Glidden" in any way significant to this article about the cocktail?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@MarshalN20 Per Wikipedia procedure, please do ping me, especially for a potential WP:BOLD concern not posted to a user/editor talk page.

1. What argument are you talking about? There is no argument. Toro-Lira, a source for your wiki-article passage on the Morris Bar, indicated that John Tinker Glidden was "possibly the first registrant not associated with the bar." That was an argument because Toro-Lira left open the possibility of more register evidence to alter that interpretation. If you are also concerned about my reference to "your Morris' Bar contentions"---you advanced several contentions, e.g., the essentiality of advertisements, 1927 as the benchmark year when the bar "had attained widespread notability," etc. Provisional interpretations, multiple firsts, and factual evidence are all elements of the study of history, as you were, and are, undoubtedly aware.

2. The question here is: why is "John Tinker Glidden" in any way significant to this article about the cocktail? Given the register scan and discussion, I inferred that the register and its signatories were important facets of your wiki-article. For example: "...by 1927, Morris' Bar had attained widespread notability for its cocktails, particularly the pisco sour. Brad Thomas Parsons writes that 'the registry at the Morris Bar was filled with high praise from visitors who raved about the signature drink.' " I aimed to expound on, and further substantiate, this secondary source evidence. In my edit, and according to Toro-Lira, Glidden gave the Morris Bar and its cocktails high praise: "perfection is made of attention to trifles and yet perfection is no trifle." If you deemed further evidence on visitors' evaluations as unnecessary to your wiki-article, then perhaps clarify that you made such a debatable assessment. Regardless, I will defer to any decision solely because you are the principal author of the wiki-article. In adherence to WP:BOLD, I intended only to reinforce and nuance extant content.

Also: you, or another editor/user, referred to "notable attendees." I'm uncertain whether Glidden satisfied your conditions for "notable" in that particular context, although Tora-Lira provided brief biographical information, including Glidden's role in the history of U.S. resource extraction from, and also limited infrastructural contributions to, Andean regions. Due to this uncertainty, I excluded the "notable attendees" passage from my response to your rephrased question. That stated, your question prompted me to add secondary sources to wiki-article passages on companies, organizations, and universities connected to Glidden, if not on Glidden himself, in the coming months. I conclude with this goal only because I hope that your question on Glidden exclusively pertained to the Morris Bar and Pisco sour. Best wishes on your continuing wiki-edits. Bustamove1 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Remember to please disclose paid editing. Anyways, no, Glidden is not a notable person. At least not any more than the random person writing "FIRST" on a YouTube video comments section. No reason to mention him at all in this article. I was hoping to read something about his significance in your response. Regardless, Have a good day.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@MarshalN20 Per Wikipedia procedure, please do ping me, especially for a potential WP:BOLD concern not posted to a user/editor talk page.

Remember to please disclose paid editing. Thanks for the tip! I'll heed your advice, which I inferred stemmed from your wiki-article depictions of, e.g., "businessmen Elmer Faucett and José Lindley" as Morris' Bar "notable attendees." I have not yet accepted "external compensation" for wiki-writing and try to minimize WP:N (advised to use shortcut notation), especially for "businessmen." If you encountered users 1) subsidized for critical evaluation of U.S.-based companies' resource extraction and infrastructure in the early twentieth-century Andes; and/or 2) compensated by undisclosed/anonymous benefactors with sufficient capital to promote WP:N for a given historical actor, counterintuitively to illuminate connections, ideas, innovations, etc., that somehow advance said benefactors...then I defer to your experience.

I was hoping to read something about his significance in your response. Once more, your source author for Morris' Bar---Guillermo Tora-Lira---is the historian who, in addition to the brief background, attributed significance to John TInker Glidden in this context: "...the next signature, dated October 4th, is from a J.T. Glidden, possibly the first registrant not associated with the bar." I will also infer that you equated Tora-Lira's argument with a YouTube comment. I hoped to focus on another quote from your source author, attributed to Glidden: " 'Perfection is made of attention to trifles and yet perfection is no trifle,' thus praising the service provided by Morris." In adherence to WP:BOLD, I intended only to reinforce and nuance extant content.

Best wishes on your continuing wiki-edits. Bustamove1 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Everybody knows...

Sourcing and written documentation are favored in Wikipedia; so, it's a bit inconvenient for Wikipedia that "everybody knows" that the Pisco Sour was invented in the Hotel Maury in Lima, Peru, not as described in the current source-documented WP article.2600:1700:2000:E740:21DF:75D9:4B60:9D24 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)