Talk:Pisco sour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ongoing vandalism - Please stop

I truly understand how this drink is a source of national pride both to Chileans and, apparently especially, to Peruvians. However, there is no need, nor any good reason, to continually attempt to write Chile out of this article (as the last several edits have attempted to do). The fact that both countries claim origin rights on this drink is well documented. Yes, Iquique was a Peruvian city at the time the drink was supposedly invented, and yes, Peru does have a seemingly stronger claim over the origin of the drink based on the verifiable evidence presented so far in the article, but it does not change the facts of the article. Both countries claim the credit (though why credit can't be shared is something that escapes me). Chile exports more Pisco, thus Chilean-style Pisco Sours are more common outside of the two countries than Peruvian ones. Both countries have an interesting story about the creation of the drink, but mostly the stories appear anecdotal more than stories based on hard, provable facts (at least that's how they appear in the article).

Productive edits that provide reliable third-party verification of facts are very much welcome. Editing this article in the name of national pride is not acceptable, so please stop doing it. Thank you. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone added "brought the grape to the Peruvian Viceroyalty from Europe" (replacing region with Peruvian Viceroyalty). This sounds like a good edit, because it is more specific, but due to the ongoing blatant nationalism-driven vandalism, I am cautious about accepting any statement like that without a citation from a reliable source confirming that the region was, in fact, part of the Peruvian Viceroyalty at the time the grape was introduced. If someone could provide such a citation, I would love to see that information added to the article. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to ongoing vandalism : Would you want to "share credit" with say Canada if they start to claim that Kentucky bourbon was born there ? That is exactly what chileans are doing .. Pisco is also a city in Peru for god's sake , what more proof does anybody need ! The fact that chileans export more, does not give them the right to claim the origin. Plus, Peruvian pisco is recognized as far better than chilean, even by chileans. In fact, nobody mentions this, but one of the main destinations for PERUVIAN pisco exports is Chile !! need I say more ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.87.243.242 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Peru, Bolivia and Chile had a major war, in which Peru and Bolivia lost. It may be a source of the "sour" relationship between the two (get the pun?!.) Gcbeehler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Doesen't make sense

This thing doesn't make sense. It's an article about Pisco Sout, not Pisco per se. Thus, saying that "hence, Pisco Sour is peruvian" is wrong, as lemons are never mentioned. The actual sentence should be "Pisco is Peruvian", which would be irrelevant to the article in anyway.

The last part of the article: "Since the Spaniards arrived to Peru at colonial times, they introduced pisco to Peru way before they reached Chile. Hence, Pisco Sour belongs to Peru." dosen't make any sense. That the pisco arrived first to Peru doesen't imply that they invented Pisco sour. There is still a debate going on about the real origin of the pisco sour and it dosen't look proper for an encyclopedia to take the side of one country without even giving a proper reason. It is not Perupedia so this kind of articles are a real insult to the intelligence of the readers.

It's silly anyway, as spainards had to pass the magellanes strait in the southern cone and sail along complete Chile (with stops in chilean Valparaiso) until reaching Peru. Panama channel didn't exist then! But who understands peruvian arguementation anyway...they always construct the most fantastic stories...

You have no idea. The spanish came overland FROM Panama to get to Peru, decades before Tierra del Fuego was traversed by Europeans. The Spanish were in Peru first, this is indisputable!! And this is from a North American history book, not some Chilean one. Yeah maybe Pisco Sour is from Chile, but you guys have no references to back it up.

pisco sour

Just try a couple of these drinks and you will be doing some fairly odd edits yourself, believe me. I lived in Lima for a while and I tell you they are potent. Quite delicious too.

Editdroid 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pisco Sour is Peruvian

I am not sure who claims ownership of this article but it is certainly misleading and should be removed or edited. One can understand that today there is a dispute between Peru and Chile about the origin of Pisco based on the grounds of production levels and consumption indexes rather than tracing back history.

However, to say that Pisco Sour (the famous drink which main ingredient is Pisco) is a cocktail from Peru and Chile it is inaccurate. Pisco Sour is a cocktail from Peru that it is also consumed in Chile and in other parts of the world.

Pisco Sour was first prepared in Lima, Peru, in the early nineteen twenties in a bar called the “Bar Morris” located at Calle Boza 847, Jiron de la Union, Lima. The cocktail soon became the favorite of locals and international guests of the Hotel Bolivar and Maury (upscale hotels of that time) whom helped it gain the international fame it has today.

If anonymous would be so kind as to point us where did he get that information, maybe there could be a nice discussion about it. But just saying things you imagined and presenting them as facts it's not going to help improving the article in any way. Azrael81 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

well, there is also the chilean version of Pisco sour being invented in Iquique.

It is said that we owe the birth of pisco sour to the English steward of a sailing ship named “Sunshine”. Elliot Stubb obtained leave to disembark in the port of Iquique, with the aim of settling in the city and opening his own bar. In the bar which he established, he experimented with many aperitifs and drinks, of which a fundamental ingredient was the limon de pica – a small lime grown in the area.In order to offer new varieties of alcoholic beverages, the Englishman experimented with many combinations, trying to create pleasant drinks. Until one fine day, he mixed pisco with his most valued ingredient, lime, and added a good dose of sugar. Fascinated by the delicious result, Elliot made it the specialty of the house, and dubbed it “sour” for the acid touch which the lime gives it.So it was that pisco sour quickly spread to all the social clubs and bars in the port of Iquique as the essential aperitif, and from there it reached the whole country and beyond its borders.http://www.turismochile.com/guide/chile/articles/600

Chileans don't have anything on Peru

Sorry, but the history of Pisco Sour from Peru is supported, and legitimate. It has a date, names of the actual place, a freaking address, and probably people around today who actually drank at that bar, back then. The Chilean story is absolutely preposterous. Some ship? Where are your references Chile? INVENT YOUR OWN DRINK!! 70.29.190.17 02:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a caption on the pic

I think its important to see this, in the first pic. i saw "chilean pisco sour", that is odd scince months ago i saw the same picture under "peruvian pisco sour" and it also looks extreamly familiar to peruvian pisco sour (maybe they both look the same?). In any case i do belive it important to add both pictures or no pictures to pursuit a neutrality. if i am wrong, PLEASE change it, but give solid proof to make this a NPOV article. Also, in the spanish article es.wikipedia.org/wiki/pisco_sour the same pic is shown with "peruvian pisco".

Hello. I agree with keeping the article NPOV, however, the change from Peruvian to Chilean in the caption was vandalism. All one has to do is click on the photo, and you will see the photo details, which state:

Description: Pisco sour

Subject: Peruvian Pisco sour is ready

Country of origin : Peru

Photographer: © Manuel González Olaechea y Franco

Shot date : July, 29th , 2005

Therefore, the Peruvian adjective is the correct one. I also see that at the same time the caption was changed, someone reversed the Peru/Chile sequence of words around within the article (i.e., making Chile first, and Peru second). This would again appear to be vandalism in the form of national pride. I will modify the caption since the photo is a Peruvian one, but I will remove the nationality from other places I have used the photo.

I am also going to revert the order of countries back for the following reasons: (1) The Chilean claim of creating the drink is earlier than Peru, but the claim listed in the article is not cited, and the Peruvian claim is. That makes the Peruvian claim verified, and the Chilean one not. If someone can find citeable proof that Chile's was first, then it might be appropriate to reverse it. (2) As the article points out, Iquique was a Peruvian city at the time the article claims the drink was invented. Despite the fact that Iquique is an important Chilean port city today, the credit should still go to Peru for creating the drink if it was invented in Iquique in 1872.

I certainly understand national pride, but Wikipedia is not the place to express it. Until reliable third-party proof is provided that shows that Chile (not a former Peruvian city currently within Chile's borders) invented it, the article should remain giving Peru the first place listing. This is not a slur against Chile, but a correct representation of facts as they have been presented to this point. --Willscrlt 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Lime? Don't be a Noob its Lemon

Pisco Sour uses LEMON not lime. Don't know where you get the crazy idea of lime.

---

Just because the word "limon" is used in South America does not mean that "lemon" is the correct term in American English. Colloquial words more difficult to translate, and colloquial uses (in many languages) are more visible year by year. (For example, recent television commercials [youtube] for Windows 7 in French are in slangy French that is incomprehensible to American students of formal French.) This issue needs the same level of scholarship as any other demand for verifiable references in Wikipedia.Stagehand (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't provide a reference for you, and personal experience is of course independent research, but I've had Pisco Sours in multiple restaurants in Santiago, across northern Chile, aboard Lan Chile and Ladeco flights, and in private homes in Chile. On the latter occasions I have helped to make them. As a U.S. native, I can state that the flavor of the drink in all of those cases matched that of the "U.S. grocery store lemon" and the fruit used, in instances where I saw it, was yellow. I have no experience with Peruvian Pisco Sours.24.59.186.144 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that persian limes are normally used, but this is not true.Typically the limón de pica is used which is called the Key Lime in the USA. It is much more bitter than a lemon or a persian lime. The french wiki says that the Peruvian and Chilean pisco sours are different, which fits with my experience: chilean pisco is sweeter than peruvian which has quite a kick. The Spanish wiki gives these quantities for Peruvian pisco, which is the exact amount I was taught: 3 ounces of pisco, one ounce of key lime juice, one ounce of simple syrup, one egg white, 6 ice cubes, 1 or 2 drops of Angostura bitters. The Chilean recipe, again according to the Spanish wiki, and fitting with what I saw in homes and bars in Santiago, Viña del Mar and La Serena is: 3 ounces of pisco, 2 ounces of key lime juice, sugar and ice to taste. Shake in a cocktail shaker. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Recipe

The recipe seems to change all the time. Please add hard referenced version of the recipe with citation. And if there are different ones add several ones, simple. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sour vs Flip

Strictly speaking, the inclusion of the egg white would make this a "Pisco Flip." 204.191.24.19 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sensitive info

I'm erasing the reference to Augusto Pinochet as it's sensitive and not being really a contribution to the article. About the claims of the invention, is pointless in my opinion. It happened long time ago and it just helps to further increase the enmity between both countries. Let's just leave it like that [PS: I'm Chilean, and I agree that Pisco is peruvian]190.21.51.142 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whisky sour

Please read these sources.

Historias de la Pampa Salitrera. Comité del Salitre (Chile). Página 49

¿Sabía usted que el exquisito whisky sour, hoy trago de acaudalados, es de origen iquiqueño?. Cuentan las tradiciones y en algunos párrafos del periódico "El Comercio de Iquique" que vimos en viejos archivos del Club Chino de este puerto que un buen mayordomo del velero "Sunshine" determinó anclar en este puerto...

— Historias de la Pampa Salitrera. Comité del Salitre (Chile). Página 49

Anales. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto de Lingüística. 1962. Página 385

El Whisky Sour, es originario del puerto chileno de Iquique. La verdad es que un buen mayordomo del velero Sunshine determinó echar anclas en el puerto de Iquique y se estableció en las cercanías del muelle de pasajeros con un bar. Cierto dia Elliot Stubb asi se llamaba el barman, estaba haciendo algunos experimentos en la en la "coctelera" con whisky y limón de pica y su sabor alcanzó delicias superiores a todos los otros menjurjes que acostumbraba a dar a sus clientes. "Voy a ponerle un poco de dulce", se dijo. Echó azúcar a una porción de jugo de limón de Pica, un poco de hielo, whisky en proporción y batió algunos segundos Y probo el mas exquisito drink que habia preparado. En adelante dijo Elliot — éste será mi trago de batalla, — mi trago favorito — , y se llamará Whisky Sour (sour, el ácido del limón). Luego dominó las fronteras y hacía su aparición en Inglaterra, donde ya estaba cimentada la fama del limón de Pica, el que hasta ahora se continúa exportando a la capital del Reino Unido y otros puntos de las Islas Británicas.

— Anales. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto de Lingüística. 1962. Página 385

Arafael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.81.45 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 March 2009

The above sources state that Elliot Stubb created the whisky sour, and do not mention the Pisco Sour. They're available only in snippet view on Google Books, and my Spanish is too terrible to tell whether they're reliable sources or not. Meanwhile, we've got a few sources in the article which state that Stubb created the Pisco sour, as well as this one, which, just to further complicate things, is in French. Not really sure what to do with this one, since the stories about Stubbs seem fairly apocryphal in the first place. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Translations

Ooh! Below are some translations of the above text +1, courtesy of User:Achata. These were moved from the article, since I don't think it's really necessary to have the sources quoted in the text. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1962 the Universidad del Cuyo (Argentina) publishes a story on the basis of "El Comercio de Iquique" where it indicates that Eliott Stubb was the creator of "whiskey sour".

...Do you know that exquisite whiskey sour, today drink of rich people, come from the port of Iquique. They tell the traditions and in some paragraphs from the newspaper "El Comercio de Iquique" that we saw in old archives of the Chinese Club of this port that a a steward of a sailing ship named "Sunshine" determined to disembark in this port...

— Historias de la Pampa Salitrera. Comité del Salitre (Chile). Page 49

...Whiskey Sour, comes from the chilean port of Iquique. The truth is that a steward of a sailing ship named "Sunshine" determined to disembark in the port of Iquique and he settled down in the neighborhoods of the wharf of passengers with a bar. Certain day Elliot Stubb, therefore the barman was called, was doing some experiments in a cocktail shaker with whiskey and limon de Pica and its flavor reached delights superiors to all the others drinks that he was used to giving to his clients. "I'll put a little sweet", he said. He put sugar to a juice portion of limon de Pica, a little ice, whiskey in proportion and beat some second and taste a exquisite drink. "In future this one" - said to Elliot - "will be my drink of battle, my favorite drink, and will be called Whiskey Sour (sour, for the acid of the lemon). Soon it dominated the borders and it made its appearance in England, where already the fame of limon de Pica was laid the foundations, the one that until now is continued exporting to the capital of the United Kingdom and other points of British Islands

— Anales. Instituto de Lingüística. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. V 8. Mendoza, Argentina. 1962. Page 385

"El Comercio de Iquique" was a peruvian newspaper published by Modesto Molina between 1874 and 1879. But in 1985 Orestes Plat narrates the same story changing whiskey by pisco.

...the truth is that the name of the product derives from the Peruvian town Pisco. And now it is spoken of "pisco del Huaso", of "Pisco de Elqui". Some years ago, journalist Carlos Diaz Vera told me that, listening to traditions and reading some chronicles of the newspaper "El Comercio de Iquique", said that the Pisco Sour is original of the port that gave glory to the Navy of Chile. The truth would be that a steward of a sailing ship named "Sunshine" determined to disembark in Chile and requested to settle down with a canteen in the port. Once established in the neighborhoods of the dock of passengers on the street Vivar, as an expert bartender in his business is prepared to taste delicious an exclusive preparations with limon de Pica. Certain day Elliot Stubb - the name of bartender - was doing some experiments in the cocktail shaker with pisco and limon de Pica, and then the flavor of the preparation reached delights superiors. "I'll put a little sweet", reportedly said. He put a sugar to a juice portion of limon de Pica, a piece of ice, pisco in proportion and beat some seconds. He taste it and declare that he obtained the most exquisite drink. In future, Elliot said, this will be my drink of battle, my favorite, and Pisco Sour will be called (sour, the acid of the lemon). The Pisco Sour happened soon forced to spread as a starter in the social clubs and bars in the port of Iquique and soon, like salt, and then dominated the country borders. The people in this mix of cheap spirits, called Roto Sagüer.

— Oreste Plath. La Estrella de Valparaíso. March 22nd 1985.

Are www.southamericanwinesonline.co.uk and www.turismochile.com valid sources? They don't mention a book or an author. --Achata (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Though the article is well written (in correct English), all of the comparisons it makes between Chilean and Peruvian pisco are misplaced and should not be part of this subject, also some of the citations are of dubious relevance and/or quality. The editors should modify this article and continually check it to be neutral (to both sides of the dispute).

References

peru.com

I see alot of reference tags to this site and I see very little reference tags from chilean sites, to be honest i see none. I tried to edit this article for the sake of fairness but I keep being chastised by the greater power. Oh well at the very least this article should stop using SPIN and just say "PERUVIAN PISCO IS BETTER BECAUSE PERU.COM SAYS SO". BTW pisco sour has been mention in desperate housewives, maybe you should add that for the Media section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.9.112 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Information in the article is made neutral by adding sourced information, not by deleting sourced information. Peru.com, as an entity, is not being sourced for its opinions. The information gathered comes from notable individuals in the media such as Anthony Bourdain. If it bothers you that these individuals do not like the Chilean version of Pisco Sour, then perhaps you should send them a letter of complaint. Wikipedia is not responsible for what people say.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the current version would be "pro-Peru biased" as 202.138.9.112 claims. As Marshall said the citations of peru.com are not opinions of that sites but of other individuals. Dentren | ^Talk 12:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dentren. I suppose another point to answer is why this article should have a "popular culture" section. Other articles which have this section tend to be topics related to culture (dances, cuisine, music, etc.); since these cultural topics tend to be short (This Pisco Sour article, at the most, should only exhibit the origin theories and the Chile-Peru debate; the central focus being the drink, of course) the popular culture sections add more information to the subject. Having said this, I suggest readers to simply take the opinions expressed in the section as nothing more than opinions. Opinions are not facts, but what makes them article-worthy is that they are said by notable individuals. In other words, just because Chef Bourdain says he likes Peruvian Pisco Sour, it does not mean that any of you should like/dislike it. For example, I don't like alcoholic beverages, so either way I do not like Pisco or Pisco Sour.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, peru.com shouldn't be used as reference, it's an "opinionated oriented" (got that MarshalN20) site focusing on the interest of just one country and therefore the information has peruvian BIAS. all information sourced from this site will be removed by me for the sake of FAIRNESS....and I encourage the authors to find more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino11au (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Eliott Stubb

I have been doing some research in regards to both Victor Morris and Eliott Stubb. Luckily, I was able to find much information on Morris, including articles which included information from his descendants such as a grandson named Michael Morris. I tried to do the same for Eliott Stubb, but many problems came up that I am unable to clear up. Let me provide a list to see if any editor can find anything to provide improvements for this article:

1. First, did Eliott Stubb make Pisco Sour before 1883? The current information seems to indicate this as true, but I would like to hear another editor's opinion.
2. Second, there seems to be a problem regarding whether Eliott Stubb invented Pisco Sour or Whiskey Sour. According to the Wings of Cherubs book/articles ([1]) and the sources in the Whiskey Sour page in Wikipedia, the original newspaper source El Comercio de Iquique mentioned the Whiskey Sour and not the Pisco Sour. This seems to be a relevant problem that should be mentioned in the article.

Please provide your input.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No Reservations with Anthony Bourdain "Chilean Pisco Sour

Anthony Bourdain initial reaction to the chilean pisco sour was "thats good". here is the link for the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXIk5bHikhg. I think what is reported on the article is very misleading. He doesn't compare the drink to the Peruvian version or show any disgust. Please remove this section, the video clearly proves the sources from peru.com are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.121.127 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the source, the information is as follows:

• "Bourdain's partner in that trip [to Chile], the Chilean producer Jorge Lopez Sotomayor, adds more details: "[Bourdain] told me that he found the Pisco Sour boring and worthless. What happens is that Tony had just come from Peru, where he tasted a bunch of Pisco Sours and found them all good, much better than the one he tasted that nights. It's sad, but true: none know in Chile how to make the Pisco Sour."

Thanks for the youtube source. It also shows the Peru.com source to be even more correct. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon checking the YouTube clip one can clearly hear Bourdain say that the Pisco Sour is good. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Him muttering "that's good" proves nothing. In that same clip he states that next time he'd rather have a beer, and what the producer later states is in no way denied by the clip. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Invention in Peru?

It seems that both theories of invention only contrast in term of cities (Iquique v Lima), but they do not contradict the country. Both Iquique and Lima were Peruvian during the alleged dates of invention. Given that, it seems fair to write that the Pisco Sour originates (or was invented) in Peru. Of course, that does not mean the drink is exclusive to Peru since nowadays two versions of it exist. Unless anyone objects, I will make the changes soon. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That claim goes against reliable sources which state that the origin is debated between both countries.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the sources only validate the necessity to present the controversy. Just because a controversy exists does not mean that it is correct. The point here is that reliable sources demonstrate that the drink (Pisco Sour) originates in Peru (the invention either done by an American or a British citizen). However, that does not mean that the drink is Peruvian (ie, exclusive to Peru).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Recent changes by Selecciones de la Vida

I'm sorry Selecciones, but the vast majority of sources agree that the Pisco Sour originated in Peru, invented by V.V. Morris. Per WP:WEIGHT, that is what must be written in the article. I originally tried to include the Elliot Stubb tale, but it has turned out to be nothing more than a folk legend (as demonstrated by historian Toro-Lira, the University of Cuyo, and even a Chilean historian). That Chile disputes the origin of it with Peru is not being denied or excluded, but that gives no right for Chile (or Chileans) to change history. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources that acknowledge the dispute between both countries while acknowledging the differences in origin.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are sources which acknowledge the dispute, yes.

However, the majority of sources (in fact, nearly all of them, except a few) accept the origin of the cocktail in Peru.

So, Wikipedia will show (1) the dispute and (2) the origin of the drink in Peru. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration is necessary.Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You may seek arbitration, if that is what you desire. However, disrupting an article to make a WP:POINT is not productive. Deleting sourced information is also not productive. Please refrain from edit warring. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You are omitting reliable sources throughout the article. The lead must maintain a WP:NPOV. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as the edit summary demonstrates, you are the one that is deleting material and sourced information. Please refrain from such actions. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC for Pisco Sour origin

There is currently a small debate between me and User:Selecciones de la Vida.

• Problem: Selecciones claims that, per WP:NPOV, the article should not list the origin of the Pisco Sour cocktail as in Peru. However, the present state of the article (which was my work) depicts the origin of the cocktail as Peru (invented by American bartender Victor Vaughn Morris).
• My reason: My reason for the current article is that the sources overwhelmingly favored the Peruvian origin of the drink (sources including historians Guillermo Toro-Lira and Gonzalo Vial Correa, Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, and Peruvian newspaper El Comercio). Moreover, the research of Toro-Lira and the University of Cuyo (from Argentina) demonstrate that the Chilean position is nothing more than folk legend (which you can read in the current "national dispute" section [2]).
• Nationality Dispute: The dispute is currently mentioned in the article as well, so it is not being hidden or ignored. My reasoning behind this is that the existence of a dispute cannot impose itself over the works of historians (from Chile, Peru, and Argentina) and reliable newspapers from Peru and Chile. My opinion is that the dispute is being correctly depicted in the article, giving it the correct amount of coverage per WP:WEIGHT, and therefore maintaining a correct WP:NPOV.

I'd like to know what others think. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even Selecciones de la Vida agrees that "Most accounts state that it originated in Lima, Peru" ([3]). To me, it's clear per WP:WEIGHT that we should give more credibility to "most accounts", especially if these are historians and reliable newspapers. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to take the side of MarshalN20 in this dispute. The position that the drink was "born" in Peru is well-supported with credible references, and that the Chilean side of the arugment is mentioned and presented takes away NPOV concerns, in my mind. MichaelProcton (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• It seems to be a pretty straight forward WP:NPOV issue: there are two views with one clearly being dominant and another being also supported by evidence, so both should be stated with more weight given to the dominant one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issue. I concur with Marshal. The majority of sources should be favored, with a note, according to WEIGHT, of the other hypotheses. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC Conclusion': Well, a whole month has taken place, and the RfC has agreed that the current article is good and fair. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yacht

I tend to think that the bit about the Chilean yacht borders on trivia; not a big deal, but I'd suggest removing it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial (only related to the drink in name).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good article, congrats! Have a drink to celebrate :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pisco Sour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 18:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[4] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Overall, pretty good. I made some copy-edits.

   There is a problem with your translating comments, which are correctly cited, and then placing them in quotation marks. You can only directly quote sources, as they are in Spanish you shouldn't be reproducing them in English Wikipedia.. I have fixed the bottom two examples in the article. You need to paraphrase and and then cite. Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   You need to add the language=spanish parameter to Spanish sources. Done

   Sources appear reliable, no OR, sources support statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   OK

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are OK, apart from the gallery of images of drinks which appears to be redundant, see WP:Galleries#Image galleries Done

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

   OK, all done now. I am happy to list this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Thank you Jez for reviewing the article. I have done all of the fixes you recommended be done for the article. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thanks to everyone who got this article to where it is — featured article of the day. —  AjaxSmack  03:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine ??

A Pisco Sour is a cocktail typical of South American cuisine.

Cuisine to describe a drink? And what about Pisco Sour is "typical" to South America? This sentence makes no sense, and it's the first thing seen on the mainpage. Further, since neither the word typical nor the word cuisine is found anywhere else in the article, the sentence is uncited. As someone who lived and worked for ten years throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I do not know what this sentence means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Thank you very much for the good questions.

To clarify, cocktails are indeed a form of culinary art that is often associated with cuisines. For example, see the GoogleBooks results on "cuisine" and "cocktail" (see [5], with 250,000 results).

Perhaps this matter should be discussed/clarified in the cuisine or cocktail articles?

Regarding "South America", the original sentence specifically associated the cocktail with "western South America" (the article explains that Chile, Bolivia, and Peru have a tradition with the cocktail). However, during the FA review the "western" part was discarded.

That said, authors do agree with this continental perspective, such as Kathy Casey in Sips and Apps, in which she calls the Pisco Sour "The classic South American drink", and Natalie Bovis in Edible Cocktails, in which she describes the Pisco Sour as "a hallmark South American cocktail".

I hope this answers your question.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If one author/source believes that, then 1) it should be cited, and 2) it should be attributed as one author's opinion (and it should not be the first sentence in the lead, since it is only an author's opinion). And the geographic region should be defined (South America is a big place, not just Western). I lived in South America for ten years, and wouldn't consider a pisco sour "typical" of anything I know of Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brasil, and others. Please fix :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a note to the first sentence.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Typical" still looks inappropriate IMO, though I can't think of a suitable alternative offhand. Gatoclass (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass; it's still a very awkward sentence, we are still putting forward two authors' opinions as a statement of fact in the first line, and it's just surprising that such a poor opening sentence is approved at FAC. I don't know how to best fix it, but I suggest scrapping the first sentence would be an improvement. Pisco Sour is not at all typical of Northern South America. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Although on a level of personal opinion I agree with both of you, I have to disagree based on my understanding of the available literature. The majority of authors list Pisco Sour among the popular or "typical" (which, I think, is synonymous with & more neutral than "hallmark" and "classic") South American, or even Latin American, cocktails.

At the aforementioned level of personal opinion, I think this reflects a certain ignorance and biased view from the authors, which is not uncommon with those who erroneously think that Latin America (or even just South America) is a region with a homogeneous culture.
However, per the policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTTRUTH (and even WP:WEIGHT), the best we can do is reflect what the sources present but provide an explanatory note on the topic (as we have already done). Unless any of us can find a source that directly challenges the notion that the Pisco Sour is a "typical South American cocktail", and which thereby contradicts the two sources that explicitly state it, we cannot do much of anything else than be unhappy about it.
Cordially.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how a drink can be "typical" of a region unless it uses ingredients or has a taste which is typical to that region, if not then "typical" is the wrong word. My concern is that the word "typical" is being used as a synonym for "popular". Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The word "typical" has several synonyms (see [6]). Alternatively, you could select a word synonymous to "classic" (see [7]) other than "typical". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Pisco Sour lead improvements

Recent improvements to the article's lead section (see [8]) need some discussion.
I remember, in one of the earlier versions of the article, the composition of the drink was placed in the first sentence. The problem with that, as mentioned in one of my edit summaries (see [9]) is that there are two versions of the drink.
Bhny's fix of that is an improvement, but has an awkward sentence flow: "A Pisco Sour is a cocktail typically made from pisco, lime or lemon juice, sugar or simple syrup and the Peruvian version also includes egg white." Moreover, the information then repeats in the third sentence, making the latter somewhat redundant ("Pisco is the base liquor and sour refers to sour citrus juice and sweetener components.").
Therefore, I consider that the version prior to the changes (i.e., [10]) is the one that should be present in the article.
Please discuss.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing redundancies of course. The first sentence shouldn't hide the ingredients. If there's two versions then it should state them. It is strange to say it is a cocktail and then not say what is in it. Bhny (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The ingredients are also mentioned immediately after the first two sentences: "The Peruvian Pisco Sour uses Peruvian pisco as the base liquor and adds Key lime (or lemon) juice, syrup, ice, egg white, and Angostura bitters. The Chilean version is similar, but uses Chilean pisco and Pica lime, and excludes the bitters and egg white."

Having the first sentence describe the ingredients also makes this explanation in the first paragraph redundant.

I can't think of another way to prevent redundancies than to follow the format prior to the recent changes. That is, unless there is another idea on how to address the redundancies?

Best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I did another edit that I hope is satisfactory. Feel free to improve it, thanks. Bhny (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but I still see the first paragraph as unnecessarily repeating the ingredients (three times, to be exact). The original version seems better, even if not perfect.

I've listed the discussion at WP:3O. Let's hear what a third user thinks about the matter before moving on.

Cheers.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not heard of this 3O thing. Interested to see how it works. I'm very open to reducing repetition, I just don't like hiding things from the first sentence. Bhny (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

3O is one of the better options to follow when there is a disagreement (to avoid edit warring or getting hot headed with another user). Another good one is WP:RfC, which we can follow if the disagreement persists.

My perspective is more focused on paragraph structure rather than on individual sentences. The paragraphs are not long, and I'm sure most readers will read the first one. In the first sentence, I consider it is enough to mention the Pisco Sour is a South American cocktail. The rest of the first paragraph can efficiently handle the different recipes (without giving favoritism to one over the other, or confusing the reader).

This is why I consider the prior version as the better one.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a "first sentence is the definition" kind of person. All the other cocktails I looked up had the recipe or at least the main ingredient in the first sentence. Bhny (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Per MarshalN20; I also think this version flows the best. There really is no point in repeating the opening line word-for-word, especially so far down in the article. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment, Erpert.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

On the nationality of experts

I made recently change where I removed the nationality of a cited expert. [11] that an editor reverted. [12] The reason is that adding nationalities (and thus stressing them above other qualities) to an expert or authority make it look like his view their view is affected by belonging to that nationality, something that is certainly not a compliment about their expertise. I will make an "extreme" analogy to illustrate the point. If we had an article about Nazi crimes and one authority/expert on them happens to be a Jew. Would we write "Jewish professor XXX states that..". Certainly not because his expertise is not conditioned by him being a Jew, and while when it come to being a respected expert or authority nationality doesn't count for much. In the example I gave adding Jewish would almost amount to an insult if not more. So if Patricio Tapia is an expert and authority his nationality is irrelevan adding he is a Chilean lessnes his expertize at the expanse of having a "Chilean view". And calling or make it sound like his view is "Chilean" is WP:OR because there is no definition of what a Chilean view on the topic is. I see the statement of the nationality as disparaging towards Chilean and Peruvian experts (note that EU ans US experts have not their nationality put). Lets clean this article of nationalism. Dentren | ^Talk 18:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that Chileans and Peruvians tend to have differing views when it comes to Pisco-related topics. I think that when one of the quoted experts is Chilean or Peruvian, that is relevant and worth noting. I don't think that's disparaging, and I believe that removing information about the nationality of the commentator does not help the reader. I also think it would be relevant to note whether someone is a Jew or a Nazi if we are going to quote their remarks about Nazi war crimes, and I hereby note that Godwin's Law has already been fulfilled here. I believe perspective matters when discussing a topic that has contentious nationalistic overtones. I would like to hear what others besides you and I think about the question. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nationality misleads the reader as it is suggestive of that that holds certain importance. Nowere in the article can I see that experts would have views conditioned by their nationality. You can not drag in people into disputes as you are suggesting because of nationality. Dentren | ^Talk 19:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there are differences between the Chilean pisco sour and the Peruvian pisco sour, it seems to me that mentioning the nationality is relevant and isn't undue weight. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The nationality of the people cited seems an appropiate context, as we are not citing people from an homogeneous background. If the problem is that the article mentions it for peruvian and chilean experts, and not for others, then just mention it for everybody and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that both Dentren and BarrelProof make good points. As BarrelProof indicates, it is important to mention the nationality of the author when the nationality is significant. Nonetheless, Tapia's statement in this case does not seem to be controversial (so the nationality may not be necessary). That said, I really do not have any preference for one option or the other.

Cambalachero's proposal could also work, but I worry that it may be a little too much to mention all nationalities.

I will comb the article over for places where controversial text might require the mention of nationality. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I wont make any further reverts in the page, I concur with Marshall that this particular issue is not to big. However I need to warn you all that stressing nationality is a dangerous path where scholars and experts are conditioned by circumstances they can not avoid.. and in the long run I see this as unjustly favoring foreign experts over local ones. Dentren | ^Talk 07:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your above promise. I will add the nationality as the information is useful. Exaggerating things is not. --141.196.195.226 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Exclusivity

I found a sentence in the lede I think is problematic. It says

Chile and Peru both claim the Pisco Sour as their national drink, and each asserts exclusive ownership of both pisco and the cocktail

No sources in the article appear to support such statement. As far as I know neither Chilean authorities nor the pisco industry is making claims of exclusive ownership. To my understanding that position is (or was) driven by the Peruvian government and industry (in FTAs and so on). Chilean authorities and industry do exclusivity claims of Chilean pisco not of pisco in general nor pisco sour. If a am wrong correct me. Dentren | ^Talk 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dentren! Thank you for raising this important point. I apologize for the delay in responding. I found a couple of articles that can bring some clarity. One from El Comercio and the other from El Mercurio. The former is more direct in addressing the matter than the latter, and it falls along the lines of the point you raise: Peru claims exclusivity of the term "Pisco" while Chile's agreements are under the name of "Pisco Chile". The source from El Mercurio does, however, indicate that "Pisco" is a term that Chile considers of Chilean origin. I'll make edits in the article making use of both sources.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dentren. I only made use of the El Comercio source in the footnote. It was more straightforward with the explanation. The other source could probably be good in the Pisco article. Thanks again for raising this point. Let me know what you think (whenever you have time available). Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Huasos in Chile

I've read this information before in the Spanish Wikipedia, but it is a primary source that no reliable secondary source takes into consideration. It is not relevant to the article, and veers into an area of original research.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 08:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pisco sour. 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/20150708155754/http://www.granhotelbolivar.com.pe/ingles/home.html to http://www.granhotelbolivar.com.pe/ingles/home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518070453/http://www.palmbeachillustrated.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&ArticleId=1609& to http://www.palmbeachillustrated.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&ArticleId=1609&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704105230/http://www.lanacion.cl/dia-de-la-piscola-a-tomar-combinados/noticias/2011-02-07/191611.html to http://www.lanacion.cl/dia-de-la-piscola-a-tomar-combinados/noticias/2011-02-07/191611.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pisco sour. 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/20101124075613/http://www.rpp.com.pe/detalle.php?nid=312238&op=7 to http://www.rpp.com.pe/detalle.php?nid=312238&op=7

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should footnote clarification in the infobox be kept?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the infobox have a footnote clarification on the difference in traditional versions of the cocktail from Peru and Chile? MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• No - I don't necessarily think there needs to be a footnote. If a reader wants clarification on the differences between the two then they will look further into it themselves. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep footnote but not in the infobox. The infobox footnote is too small and un-aesthetic. The footnote would do better if explained at the bottom of article. Dentren | ^Talk 07:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• No a footnote should not be added to the inbox but explained in further detail in the body of the article, perhaps in the Preparation and variants section. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IBA Recipe and Infobox

The infobox should be a quick summary of the relevant preparation information in the text. I can understand the need to specify that the IBA recipe for the cocktail is a single one, but it is illogical to delete the information on the national variations of the cocktail. That the cocktail has different ingredients in Chile and Peru is a key element of their distinction (which, due to the dispute between both countries, makes it all the more important to point out).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To point out that there is a difference between the national recipes is fine...but not in the infobox of an IBA cocktail. There is a set of rules and standards for cocktails and among them is that, if the drink is an IBA drink, then that recipe is the only one that is relevant, and is not to be deviated from. Thus, national variations goes in the text, not in the infobox.85.229.56.88 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A cocktail being listed by the "IBA" does not make it property of it. The IBA is just another variation of the cocktail, but no more or less important than the versions from Peru and Chile. It's not okay to fool the reader into thinking there is a "standard" Pisco Sour version.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Which part of 'set of rules and standards set forth to be used on Wikipedia' did you miss?31.208.103.192 (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@MarshalN20:, the use of the IBA manual is because it is a widely utilized guide for blending of various drinks, as such a lot of bartenders, restaurants and bars use the recipe from the book as the template for the drink when ordered by patrons. By that metric, it is the most common recipe found internationally. Yes there are variants, but this version would be the one most people would encounter, hence its use. Also, please read up on WP:Infoboxes, this will give a more thorough description of their use and the manner in which we populate the fields within them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in dragging on a petty dispute, but thank you for the explanation Jeremy. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)