Talk:Cachaça: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:24, 25 March 2008

Brazil B‑class Mid‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rum only from molasses?

Examples of rums that use sugar cane juice instead of molasses:

Allen3 00:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(According to the website, Mount Gay uses molasses. This link above should likely be removed.)RWaters 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when the law forbidding its sale was repealed? (I removed the query from the article).

The drink should not touch the tip of the tongue, but the latest section, in order not to "burn". Have trimmed this slightly, pending clarification of "but the last section".

I have reworded "stade" to "state of", as this makes more sense with the link following.

--/Mat 22:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cachaça x Rum

There are enough differences between rum and cachaça to keep them under different titles. Cachaça is typical from Brazil, and should be used as a market argument in benefit of the producers.

Just like the denomination of origin champagne (we produce sparkling wines in Brazil but we can't brand them champagne because only in France you can produce it). jggouvea 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corn

This page links to the disambiguation page corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 23:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to maize. — Pekinensis 04:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

No one here in Brazil writes Cachaça as Cachasa. Leo McAllister 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supported'. Anyway, intervocalic s in Portuguese is pronounced as z, so it would result in this spelling error being read more like cashaza than cashassa. The ç is a letter kept for the sake of tradition, it remembers us of Latin roots that had any other letter than s in that place. It was pronounced as an affricate stop in mediaeval Portuguese but has been reduced to an unvoiced fricative, homophonous with s. It is also used for some words of Arab or Tupi origin. jggouvea 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has changed the IPA code for the pronunciation argueing that this should be in BP, not EP. However, the previous pronunciation was correct -- at least according to Standard Brazilian Portuguese (in which unstressed final a shifts to ɐ). But I am refraining from reverting until supported by more people. jggouvea 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Is it really necessary to flood the footer of the article with so many links to cachaça producers? jggouvea 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cachaça consumption in Brazil

There is no way that the average brazilian drinks 12 liters of Cachaça anually. That data is completely made up, and its source is unverifiable. I think that this piece of information should be removed.

201.26.123.217 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more realistic figure of annual consumption has been sourced and put in place. --Sturm 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the old information... Anyway, I think that any attempt to measure the consumption "per head" of this drink is ridiculous, as there is no credible source of that information. What you did there was divide the annual production by the Brazilian population, which has resulted in a completely ABSURD figure. I will edit the article again; if you choose to include that information again, please make sure you find a credible source. 201.42.198.233 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annual consumption doesn't necessarily mean "this is the amount drunk every year". It means "this is the amount used every year". I'm sorry the figure isn't to your liking, but that isn't in itself an argument for its removal now that it's sourced. --Sturm 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says nothing about head consumption: All cachaça originates in Brazil, where 396 million gallons are consumed annually, compared with 3.96 million outside the country. The USA is the fastest-growing market with 264,200 gallons a year and counting. Leblon, for instance, produced 31,704 gallons last year and aims to quadruple that this year as caipirinhas continue to catch on. (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-02-15-brazil-cachaca_x.htm)

Can you please explain where you got that "(roughly eight litres per head)" figure from? 201.42.190.95 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic: I divided the annual consumption by the population. --Sturm 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 --[[User:Mat-C|/Mat]] 22:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-==Merge with Rum==
-I cannot see any significant difference between [[cachaça]] and [[rum]], other than the country of manufacture. Thus I think that the pages must be merged.  Objections?<br>[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 06:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-Yes, cachaca isn't rum, plain and simple. Different history, different tradition, different varieties,differend production etc. Cachaca is from Brazil. A unique spirit. Of course it needs its own entry in the worlds largest encyclopedia. --[[User:Qwerty qwerty|Qwerty qwerty]] 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-:Maybe they are similar, but you can't call any type of sparkling wine ''champagne'' because that's a denomination of origin. Only in Brazil cachaça is produced. Elsewhere they produce anything else. Besides I have drank both and they don't taste the same, cachaça has a stronger taste. [[User:Jggouvea|jggouvea]] 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 == Cachaça x Rum ==